The President announced today that America will pull out of the Paris Agreement; an agreement entered into by former President Obama without an action by Congress ratifying the action. Since then, the newswires have been ablaze with arguments on both sides of the issue. What's your main concerns in the short-run and long-run? What evidence can you present to support your thoughts? Scholars of the agreement have identified that other nations are allowed to build hundreds of coal plants while America is told to reduce ours - seems like a redistribution plan to me...
sort by best latest
If they follow through, penalizing the US by putting tariffs on our exports, it will lead to trade wars.
Great comparison! Folks that are on statins can at least feel better because they THINK they're helping themselves. Global warming activists can at least feel better because they THINK they're doing something to stop global warming.
I think they get more pleasure about the "control" factor that the global-warming scam allows them to exercise - then, like Al Gore, they all get rich on investing in green energy schemes they made sure will get funded.
Here's a nice graphic that shows the nature of human impact. In fact, the whole Skeptical Science website is filled with good information:
It really does take a good understanding of science to even coherently approach the issue. Here is a link of a video of an MIT professor and climate physicist if your interested in the skeptics views. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OwqIy8Ikv-c
That is news to me. How are European nations converting to green energy source at such high rate? And without nuclear power?
I am skeptical. In the US, green energy, despite the tax incentives have not reached anywhere near the level projected. Some
I recently published an HP article on this, but these videos (the first one a few years old) should give some insight into Europe’s rapid progress towards being green:
Actually, China and India are doing great at getting off coal and meeting their Paris Accord agreements - much better than we are. Read this article:
Thanks for the update Sue, I thought they were but I hadn't caught up with the latest developments there as I've been concentrating on the latest developments in Europe e.g. the Energy super grid (now almost complete) https://youtu.be/fBcwJmZ6qK0
I agree. The Paris Accord is a multi Trillion dollar Global TAX. It also doesn't reduce carbon emissions, and there is no real proof that is a problem. It is more like the Statin drugs to reduce Cholesterol in the body, but the both gens it by itself
Like all the other global organizations, this is one more example of bureaucracy gone wild - lots of funding with no results
Hey Brad you've been plagerized by someone named hunzala. This thread is on this q and a.
Time will tell, but you are way off base.
Tell that to the Australians who invested heavily into green energy and now are dealing with brown out and blackouts due to unreliable wind and solar power.
When clean energy sources are less costly as compared to fossil fuels, people will switch over. Low energy prices benefit ALL Americans - your ideas would force people to choose between eating and energy
I'm all for working on green energy solutions, but I'm not in favor of forcing these things on people. As Ralph said, when these technologies are better developed, they'll rise to dominance.
Luckily there are thousands of people in the US (Including city and state leaders) who "get it" and are reducing emissions anyway. They're demanding that banks stop financing fossil fuels projects. They're donating money for court cases and more.
Ralph, you’re behind the times; renewable energy became cheaper than fossil fuels in 2016; as indicated in these videos:
Europe is now reaping the benefits.
Arthur - I'm a realist who looks at the TOTAL cost structure and reliability factor. When you add in the costs to produce the equipment to make green energy, it's not even a close race. And don't get me started on the subsidies
Ralph, search and development is now at advanced stage; costs have come down to 5th of what they were just a few years ago. So as from 2016 cost of building & decommissioning coal/nuclear is now more expensive than renewables. Check latest figur
How does a non-binding agreement stop technology from advancing? Unlike the Chinese, we have a Capitalistic economy where private companies are free to develop what they want - using their OWN money - that's really the crux of it, right, money?
Ralph, private companies mainly greed for self-interest short term profits for CEO; not so interested in what’s best for rest of economy or any other ethical or environmental interests. That’s why US will be left behind and isolated in the world.
Arthur, if private companies see that they can make money by producing green technology, they'll do it. There are lots of American based corporations that were disappointed by the US pulling out...they see potential in green technology.
Hxprof, I agree. But the problem with Laissez-faire economy is big companies being focused on short term maximum profits for their shareholders; that may not be in the best long term interests for the economy, society and the environment.
China is a capitalistic country just organized differently. As you step out you will be left out of the talks of how energy and tech will be developed world wide. It's not just a pledge, it's organizing too.
What alternative solutions?
Checkout my hubs on climate change - what if it takes 1000 years?
Jack I agree. Al Gore predicted in 2006, it would only take 10 years. It went down! The implementation benefits the polluters, and penalizes the US specifically. As well as costing $3 trillion for less than 1 degree drop by 2100.