As an AGW anthropogenic global warming skeptic, I support this move by President Trump.
The environmental extremists will be apoplectic over this decision.
What is your opinion?
Perhaps it is time we have a national discussion on the merits of climate change mitigation.
Here is link to story -
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/ … 1-09-01-31
I totally agree it's the correct move for the long-term for America. Our fate as a nation should not be subjected to a Euro-Socialist model which limits how we can grow our energy sector.
+1 ... We've had enough regulatory warfare from within the US. We don't need to invite a fight with foreign nations trying to enforce their Globalist socialist agenda.
The problem with the Paris accord is that it was a voluntary agreement with no enforcement or penalty.
It unfairly put burden on the US and little on the 3rd world.
Even some climate scientists didn't think the accord was any good and will do very little to affect reducing global warming.
The next few years will really be a tipping point.
Either climate change projections are going to be confirmed or rejected based on real data and not on climate models.
The majority of Americans, 200 other countries, NASA, 37 international science organizations and many other credible sources believe this is yet another bad decision by Trump.
The only extremists worth mentioning are the climate change deniers.
We are not deniers but skeptics.
There are plenty to be skeptical about including the dire warnings of global warming and coastal floods.
Tell that to Al Gore who has a mansion by the ocean and a carbon foot print 20 times the average person.
Just because we don't buy into the AGW theory does not mean we don't care about protecting our environment.
They key is the timeframe. If global warming will raise the oceans in hundreds of years, it is not as dire as it may seems. We humans have always adapted to changing environments.
A skeptic has questions or concerns. A denier applauds exiting an agreement that was signed by 200 countries based on research and evidence endorsed by dozens of scientific organizations including NASA and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.
Why would we agree to a flawed accord? That will cost us billions and have little results to show?
President Trump made a statement on the Paris Accord. It was much worse than I knew for the USA and Americans, it was a giant screw job like TPP and Obamacare.
A lot of the statement was misleading, based on false assumptions or simply false.
Like 'China and India can build as many coal fired power stations as they like and we can't'. There was nothing to prevent the US building coal if it wanted to. All targets, for all countries were voluntary. The only obligation was to set a target to reduce emissions and then report on the progress made.
Also, most of the criticism of the Paris accord that he quotes comes from one report which assumes, in every case, the worse-case outcomes for the economy. US industry would have needed to perform very badly to come close.
Anyway, Trump has finally made his mark in the most malicious way that he is able to do.
Future generation will hate him, and all the other dupes of the fossil fuel industry, as they struggle to cope with the fallout.
Yes, we are now aligned with Syria and not with 195 other countries. Trump is proving to be the malevalent force I feared he would be. He couldn't have done it without his adoring fans, though. Too bad we all have to suffer because of the short-sighted and horrendous judgment of the minority.
Now that we've pulled out, we will have no influence on world policies that will affect all of us. Stupid, stupid, stupid.
The EU and China will now bear the brunt of the costs of fighting climate change and will have a powerful motive for freezing the US out of the international arena.
Yep. If you want to participate in the world economy you better be willing to work with the rest of the world. This is beyond stupid.
Oh my gosh. Another country taking the brunt of the cost of anything other than the United States in this day and age? Is that even possible? I do wonder?
If you want to be a world leader, you step up, not down. As Will previously explained, participating in the Accord included almost no mandatory actions. Not participating now means the U.S. will have no say or influence upon the agreed upon actions. I see no upside to that.
No mandatory actions? Is that really participating in anything? Sounds like feel good bs to me.
Yes, I'm sure all those leaders have been wasting time and resources on feel good bs. Good thing we have such principled and brave leaders as Assad and Trump to stand against the nonsense.
I'm not attempting to belittle actions taken by any country to minimize their carbon footprint. As I've said, I'd love to see America take the lead. You said no mandatory action was required. I was simply commenting on your comment.
It is flawed because there are no consequences for violating the agreement. It is voluntary conpliance. Also, it cost the US billions while other countries pay very little. If I was the other 200 nations, I would sign it too. Please read it. Even climate scientists don't think the Paris accord was any good and they estimate even if everything was done as prescribed, it would affect the global temperature by a small fraction. Where is the cost/benefit analysis? It seems like a dud.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/09/30/ … er-anyway/
Everyone agreed targets in Paris and everyone was making progress.
Frankly, the rest of the world needs to think about a pollution tax on US goods if the country cannot pull its weight.
How naive ! The reason , AND the only reason America joined that agreement ,as usual ; Was to finance something the rest of the world wouldn't ! To promote cleaning our environment that we hold to higher standards than they do , Financing a multi-national environmental agreement BECAUSE the rest of the world pollutes more , isn't an incentive for environmentally conscious growth of any struggling nation BUT a reason for them to waste , pollute and cost us more !
America closed coal mines - Oil Fields , Natural gas lines ,India , Russia , China , Africa opened more, Makes no sense to me !....... Not !
Apparently it made sense to Obama .
You can add top CEOs in America who also think his decision was wrong.
http://money.cnn.com/2017/06/01/news/ce … index.html
You mean Elon Musk who's solar company stands to make a fortune on our contribution to the Paris Accord. Why wouldn't he?
Yes, because he is a forward thinking visionary businessman. If you don't change with the times and grow, you stagnate and die.
By the way, the big oil execs have also publicly stated their support for remaining in the Accord.
http://fortune.com/2017/06/01/apple-goo … is-accord/
That's a valid point about Musk. What about GE, Microsoft, Google, Disney, JP Morgan, Intel, Dell, Apple, Facebook, Exxon, Chevron, etc.?
Most of these are multi national corp. who does business worldwide. They cannot afford the bad publicity for not supporting the religion of climate change ala Al Gore...
Let them put money where there mouth is. That is when I will be convinced.
Science is one thing. Religion is another.
Are you religious?
Science is not religion. You are spouting nothing but talking points and display an astounding lack of knowledge of the subject at hand. No wonder you are aligned with Trump and Assad over 190-plus other countries.
Before we get off track into a shouting match, let's just make sure we all know what is in the Paris Accord. Here is a short summary -
http://www.climatefocus.com/sites/defau … %20FIN.pdf
The real questions for us are - is this a good deal for US? And will it do anything to reduce climate change?
By the way, here is Michael Mann on the Paris Accord COP21 who claims it is only half way where we should be.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michael-e … 99764.html
This was written right after the Paris accord was made.
Here is James Hanen on the Paris Accord calling it a fraud...
https://www.theguardian.com/environment … alks-fraud
But, but.... jackclee... he isn't calling it a fraud because its concepts are wrong, he is just saying they are not enough.
GA, doesn't that kind of proof my point. If climate change is really that dire, why did they come up with such a watered down agreement? Unless, they really don't believe their own retheric. It was just a way to create an international slush fund.
Or, if the Paris agreement was the best they could get that would involve the most nations in at least joining the race. I have already stated I can't speak about the details of the Paris accord from an informed position, but I can speak from a perceived perspective. And from that position, I don't think your comment is valid.
Remember the old adage, 'a half a loaf is better than none?'
The details of the accord may be as bad as Pres.Trump said, I don't know, but the concept of gathering global involvement is a good thing to my way of thinking. I think, regardless of the climate change rational, that we must focus on developing beyond fossil fuels. That none of the "green" alternatives seem feasible substitutes - now - isn't an important point. Consider that tired example of the break-up of the old Ma Bell.
For me, sticking with fossil fuels because they are easier and cheaper - now - is like being satisfied with your only telephone choice being the color of the one plugged into the wall in the hallway, (or kitchen, (remember those curled 25' handset extension cords) or living room side table).
Hello again jackclee, I am a bit surprised you posted this link, unless you think that the point of the Paris Agreement being only a starting point is a negative.
I liked the article. It made sense. Not for a 'for or against' stance on the agreement, but for a good summation of why the Paris accord is a good thing.
Can you argue against this partial quote from the argument?
"The age of fossil fuels is ending...."
Don't you think it is in our, (and the world's), best interest to develop beyond fossil fuels?
GA, yes and no. If a renewable energy source can be found, that is economically cheaper than fossil fuel, without tax subsidies, then I am all for it. Let the market place decide. I am not sure that is possible in the near or distant future. The advantage of fossil fuel is too great. We may be able to reduce some by renewable alternatives but not all. I wrote a hub about this and you can read it.
As Australia have found out the hard way, going green in a big way causes blackouts and brownouts.
Unfortunately, as much as technology has improved, wind and solar power have their limitations.
The problem with the Paris accord is that it is not mandatory. They are mere recommendations and voluntary reductions of emission targets.
As I said before, scientists have said even if all that is proposed target is met, it still only have a negligible effect in lowering global temperature. Where is the beef?
Hi jackclee, I think your topic is a good one for discussion, I just wish I knew enough about the Paris agreement details to participate. I read your link, and damned if I know any more than what I did before I did.
That summary brief was so full of ambiguous language that I sure hope you have done more research than just relying on that - and Pres. Trump's characterizations - to form your opinion.
But I will say... that on the surface it does appear to me that we may be taking an Isolationist and Nationalist position that is putting dollars before our best interests. I just don't know, yet, if that is a correct interpretation. I will get back with you when I know more.
I'm off to find the accord's details so I can judge who is telling the truth, and who is spinning.
ps. I do like your determination of Skeptic vs. Denier.
According to the UN, "147 Parties have ratified out of 197 Parties" .
The Paris Agreement
FYI, "Parties" = Countries.
I don't think even the flat earth people are that extreme. IDK
I'm somewhat unable to get overly emotional on the subject. Is the climate changing? Certainly. Have we passed the tipping point? If there is one and human activity is primarily responsible, yes. I'd love to see America take the lead on finding ways to mitigate the damage human activity has done but I think one thing those fearful can't take into account is that climate changes naturally and our percentage of responsibility for the change is still a subject of debate. Everything we do to mitigate damage we have done may have as negligible an effect on the outcome as it had on the onset.
I reckon Trump was upset by the six other leaders of the G7 trying to talk some sense into him. Or maybe it was the Pope. Or the UN. Or his own senior scientists.
Old guys hate being told they are idiots.
Or maybe it is just the desperate desire to impact the world in some way, after so many failures.
If I owned a property within a few feet of sea level, I would sell it now, before it becomes worthless once people realize the ocean is going to take back what it once had over the next couple of centuries. I live at 750 feet above sea level, so i will be fine in that regard.
One more Brilliant Trump move ! It will save hundreds of thousands of US . jobs , Billions of dollars in foreign aid to the undeserving , One more U.S. protectionist move that the real people love , and tell the rest of the countries in the world ,
"You do not dictate American politics , economics and foreign policies "!
And , didn't Obama sign that with an executive order action ?
All nations, party to the accord have condemned the move at the same time they are arriving at a concensus that one nation backing out should't make a difference or derail the process, which in itself is a major developement.
Perhaps, an opportunity for the world to slowly move out of the hegemonistic US shadow. China EU may take the lead here.
Quite a few U.S. mayors and governors are vowing to stick with the Paris accords and defy Trump. The number is growing.
http://www.cnn.com/2017/06/01/us/trump- … index.html
That is all feel good talk. Do they even know what is in the accord? Reduce carbon emission level by 40% below 1990 level by 2020? Can these cities do that? How about donating billions to the fund? These cities are running deficits today? How do they expect to come up with the money?
You lack a basic understanding of how emissions reductions are accomplished if you think cities will foot the bill for that 40% reduction goal.
Why don't you educated me on how reduction suppose to work?
There are only a few ways...
Convert coal power plants to renewable power.
Convert gas powered cars to hybrid and electric cars.
Convert oil and gas home furnaces to solar or wind...
Convert all electric appliances and bulbs to more efficient models...
According to "the Science guy", reduce human population and adopt a vegetarian diet.
Please explain why cities would foot the bill for any of that?
You said: "These cities are running deficits today? How do they expect to come up with the money?"
I was responding to the US mayors who wants to abide by the Paris accord. If you read the agreement, the US is expected to kick in $100 billion over the next 10 years...and voluntary reduce co2 emissions below 40% level of 1990. How will the cities comply?
I asked you first. Why do you think cities will be footing the bill for any of those items you listed? Please explain why a city government would pay to convert gas powered cars to hybrid or electric, to use one example you gave. I'm just trying to get to the level of knowledge You have since you are so worried about cities not having funds to pay for carbon emissions reductions, you used that as a reason why we should not join the other 195 countries who signed the agreement. Are we on the such precarious financial footing that only us and Syria cannot participate?
You are missing my point. Trump decided to pull out of the agreement because it is a bad deal for the US. The mayors came out and claim they will abide by it anyway in defiance of Trump. It is just hot air and feel good talk. They can't do anything except to pay the bilions that the agreement calls for...
That was my comment. They have no intention of footing the bill and no revenues anyway.
I support a renegotiation of a new deal where all countries are forced to comply with penalties if they don't. That is the only fair way to share the load across the board.
What aim trying to get at is it is not cities who ×ould be "paying billions" so your point is invalid. No one entity, especially not a government entity would be paying billions. That is just a talking point that you are mindlessly (so it seems) regurgitating in support of Trump's decision.
Here is partial quote from the Paris Accord summary -
"Finance: The COP Decision ‘strongly urges’ developed countries to scale up their levels of financial support with a concrete plan to reach the USD 100 billion target by 2020. The Decision singles out adaptation finance as an area which needs a significant increase of finance from current levels."
What does that mean to you? Just words...
The bulk of the 100 billion will be coming from the US, to help 3rd world countries adopt green energy.
That is why Elon Musk support it. His solar company will make plenty.
I support a new deal that will have muscle and teeth and are equitable across all nations.
Okay, let's set aside your bizarre claim that cities would be paying billions. Do you realize there will be no new deal? Trump pulled out of the agreement. One hundred ninety five countries are not going to start over to placate our boorish leader
Without the US funding this effort, who else will step up? It is expecting 100 billion infusion of funds to help the 3rd world adopt green energy.
If this works, perhaps we can pay down our debt by backing out NATO and the UN...
Why are you so hung up on what a politician like Al Gore predicted 11 years ago? He is not a scientist. He is a politician. We can all look at the data http://www.columbia.edu/~mhs119/ and make up our own minds where this is all heading. I am going to re-watch An Inconvenient Truth soon to see how it is working out. As I recall, Al Gore was talking about events many decades and even centuries into the future. Anyone who has been making predictions like the ice caps will melt over the next decade are just foolish and should be ignored. On that note, we may have the biggest ice berg in modern times breaking off an Antarctic ice sheet soon. The size of Delaware.
Al Gore is not the only one. The IPCC which was behind the Paris Accord are also predicting extreme dire consequences... the recent pause caused them and NOAA to double down and predict even worst disasters... If no one listen to them, I would have no problem. Yet, countries are buying these predictions and instituting policies that hurt the average people in terms of higher energy costs and lost jobs...
Exactly. Hillary Clinton talks to the Ghost of Eleanor Roosevelt, so I agree with you that crazy politicians are of no help. Personally I look forward to a warmer climate. Alaska will be like a tropical paradise.
I use way more energy heating my home in cooler temperatures than any other time. Of course I also supplement that by chopping and chain-sawing any tree I can find. Warmer climates might use less energy, whereas Cold Climate Advocates could cause California to be covered by the Pacific Ocean. Now, granted I am not a Scientist in real life, but that cannot be good for Hollywood liberals.
Thank you for that highly relevant contribution. It's all clear now.
Don't have one. (Yes, I had to look it up.)
Is like taxes. Always easier to swallow the idea, if its someone else compelled to do it. If the world spent trillions on new reactors..
Willing to sit and stare at a dark pc screen. By candlelight? 7 8 9 10 billion people. Theyre hungry, cold and bored and they demand more energy than you can possibly imagine.
Michael Bloomberg just announced he would pay $15 million to Paris Accord. That's a great start. I want to see all these millionaires and billionaires, Bezos, Gates, Musk, Page, Cook, Gore...pay their share voluntarily. If they care about the planet so much, and they think the Paris accord is such a great deal from a business point of view, go for it. We will see how many step up...
+++++++Zuckerberg , Branden , Hollywood , .................Bloomberg will be paying with a senate check , NOT out of his personal account for damned sure .
Bloomberg is a philanthropist. I take him at his word. I am going to hold him to his pledge. In fact, I am thinking of starting a campaign called the Bloomberg plan to save the planet...
Everytime some smart entrepreneur bring up climate change, I will ask if he will follow suit and put his money where his mouth is and donate to this fund. That will shut them up quick...
They put in a lot of time and effort making that money. Theyre not gonna just throw their money away on perforated water buckets.
Once again, your contribution has made everything crystal clear.
Liberals dabble in saving the world by demanding someone else do it. The reality is they dabble in saving the world by demanding someone else give it pain management.
That ridiculous. Socially conscious entrepreneurs are making a positive impact on the world. it is possible to make huge sums of money innovating environmentally friendly products and services. If you don't see a problem or opportunity for something better, you won't bother to create anything new. Your statement is a reflection of your limited thinking and political bias. I would never conclude your personal opinion is representative of conservatives, though, because umping conservatives together and claiming to know what they think and do would be arrogant and self-limitiing. You might try viewing people as individuals. It frees your mind to see people instead of talking points.
Positive impact. Enviromentally friendly. Pain management.
The Chinese need 5 trillion in reactors going online yesterday. Plus everyone needs to stop flying to Paris and driving cars. You should be nicer to conservatives. Theyre the charitable ones with the wallets that can get it done, as opposed to talking about it.
You obviously don't want to have a genuine discussion. Conservatives aren't capable of speaking with individuals; they can only place individuals in a conservative vs liberal context. It is easier on their simple minds.
See how that works?
I don't really believe that about conservatives. I'm just using your own tactic on you. I do, however, believe it about you, the individual, based upon your comments in this thread..
Notwithstanding, one of us has an mppt and the other has advice.
And you make a sweeping conclusion based upon that? Your oversimplification allows you to feel superior but further cements my view of your lack of sincere intentions and inability to look beyond stereotypes.
My car gets 40 mpg on a tank of sincere intentions.
Thank you. I would say it's good to be back but I'm withholding judgment on that, Looking forward to GA's new thread he's working on.
by Jack Lee 22 months ago
Forget the Russian collusion..there was nothing there.It seems to me, if the claims of climate scientists are correct, why not go after Trump for crime against humanity...If the whole world is in agreement that climate change is the biggest threat to the world even worse than ISIS...Let's get to...
by Scott Belford 2 years ago
There are two major would shaping forces at risk with a Trump presidency; an economic meltdown brought on by a sharp decline in American productivity, and, a much more important one, the environment. I will leave the economy to another forum, for it is the environment I am much more worried...
by Goodpal 5 years ago
What is the root cause of Global Warming -- Greenhouse Gases, Bad Lifestyle or Lack of Money?People blame greenhouse gases - CO2, methane, etc - for global warming and climate change problems. In my opinion, these gases are the symptoms of the problem, the root cause lies in the modern lifestyle...
by sannyasinman 8 years ago
Global Cooling and the New World Order ... http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/james … rld-order/
by Jack Lee 2 months ago
The latest green new deal is one example of common sense going out the window.We have serious politicians and political commentators and media types talking seriously about this. How is this possible? What is in the air and water that allow this to carry on...?The proposals are so extreme and over...
by Ralph Deeds 5 years ago
" ROCHESTER — IN 1982, polls showed that 44 percent of Americans believed God had created human beings in their present form. Thirty years later, the fraction of the population who are creationists is 46 percent. "In 1989, when “climate change” had just entered the...
Copyright © 2019 HubPages Inc. and respective owners. Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners. HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc. HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.
|HubPages Device ID||This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.|
|Login||This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.|
|HubPages Traffic Pixel||This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.|
|Remarketing Pixels||We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.|
|Conversion Tracking Pixels||We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.|