jump to last post 1-9 of 9 discussions (26 posts)

What's your biggest concerns with America pulling out of the Paris Climate Accor

  1. RJ Schwartz profile image94
    RJ Schwartzposted 8 months ago

    What's your biggest concerns with America pulling out of the Paris Climate Accord?

    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...

    https://usercontent2.hubstatic.com/13554233_f260.jpg

  2. jackclee lm profile image80
    jackclee lmposted 8 months ago

    It would be used to demonize those of us who do not believe the dire projections of climate change. There are alternative solutions that does not require cutting fossil fuel use...

    1. Austinstar profile image87
      Austinstarposted 8 months agoin reply to this

      What alternative solutions?

    2. jackclee lm profile image80
      jackclee lmposted 8 months agoin reply to this

      Checkout my hubs on climate change - what if it takes 1000 years?

    3. bradmasterOCcal profile image32
      bradmasterOCcalposted 8 months agoin reply to this

      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.

  3. Carolyn M Fields profile image93
    Carolyn M Fieldsposted 8 months ago

    The Paris Agreement was extremely lopsided. The USA has to spend billions of dollars in green initiatives, and the rest of the world sits by and "tries" to do something. It's ridiculous. Obama was NOT a good negotiator. He would do ANYTHING to forward his ideology, without regard to cost. Also, the jury is still out on climate change. I can point to just as many scientists that say "no" as say "yes." Only you can't look it up on google, because the search engine is skewed. Here is some interesting reading:

    http://www.nationalreview.com/article/4 … ian-tuttle


    The only group of people completely convinced seem to be celebrities, and the Germans.
    My only concern is the fall-out politically.

    1. gregas profile image82
      gregasposted 8 months agoin reply to this

      Climate change is going through it's natural course. Pulling out was a good idea.

    2. RJ Schwartz profile image94
      RJ Schwartzposted 8 months agoin reply to this

      The Chinese and Indians were allowed to build 100's of coal fired plants while the US had to reduce / It was Obama and the Globalists trying to neutralize the US world power

  4. Nathanville profile image96
    Nathanvilleposted 8 months ago

    I do note that Australia’s attempt to go green seems to have gone belly-up, but before I form any firm opinions I’ll be chatting with my Australian cousins to get their perspective.  Although I suspect the problem relates to insufficient resilience while the green energy infrastructure is being developed.

    Unlike America and Europe, China and India are not first world countries.  They are still developing their Industrial base, and there needs to be a period of adjustment before they catch up to the developed world, which initially includes an element of coal until they develop sufficient redundancy in their green energy infrastructure.

    One thing about the new Chinese coal power stations which seems to have been missed from the American news media is that they are not intended as the primary energy source, but only for resilience e.g. will only be used 50% of the time initially and eventually phased out.

    This is the point Britain has reached.  The UK is sitting on 69% of Europe’s coal reserves, and we still have enough coal to last 200 years at pre 1990 levels of use. 

    In 1990 67% of Britain’s electricity needs were met from coal, this dropped to 30% in 2014, 22% in 2016, and 2% this year.

    This year, just a modest 2% on average of Brittan’s energy needs are now met from burning coal.  In fact on the 21st April 2017 Britain went a full 24 hours without burning any coal for the first time in 135 years.  The remaining coal power station in the UK is now only used for resilience, with the intention to have sufficient resilience in green energy technologies to close our last coal power station by 2025.

    I feel sorry for America’s future, because across Europe a growing number of countries are increasingly meeting 100% of their energy needs from green renewable energies including Scotland, Germany and Denmark; none of whom uses nuclear power; and in Europe, we are beginning to reap the economic and social benefits of green energy strategy.

    First Ever Coal Free Day for UK:  https://youtu.be/CNYcGFlbTqU

    1. jackclee lm profile image80
      jackclee lmposted 8 months agoin reply to this

      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

    2. Nathanville profile image96
      Nathanvilleposted 8 months agoin reply to this

      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:

      Scotland https://youtu.be/yPQckF8R2TI 

      Germany: https://youtu.be/z44Mq7mXoCE

    3. Sustainable Sue profile image98
      Sustainable Sueposted 8 months agoin reply to this

      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:
      https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/22/opin … .html?_r=0

    4. Nathanville profile image96
      Nathanvilleposted 8 months agoin reply to this

      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

  5. profile image81
    Hxprofposted 8 months ago

    I have no concerns.  This was a positive move.

    1. bradmasterOCcal profile image32
      bradmasterOCcalposted 8 months agoin reply to this

      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

    2. RJ Schwartz profile image94
      RJ Schwartzposted 8 months agoin reply to this

      Like all the other global organizations, this is one more example of bureaucracy gone wild - lots of funding with no results

    3. Dean Traylor profile image94
      Dean Traylorposted 8 months agoin reply to this

      Hey Brad you've been plagerized by someone named hunzala. This thread is on this q and a.

  6. wba108@yahoo.com profile image81
    wba108@yahoo.composted 8 months ago

    I really don't have any major concerns it, Trump did the right thing.

    The United States would be paying a long term cost in the trillions for an unenforceable agreement where we would foot the lions share of the expenses while our economic adversaries would stand to gain.

    Over the last 20 years the climate has changed very little but the voices of the climate alarmists have grown ever louder.

    According to this link https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OwqIy8Ikv-c

    -there are lots of factors that effect climate and there is no proof that CO2 is the dominant factor.

    Almost all scientist agree, that

    (1) the climate is always changing

    (2) given the complexity of climate, no confident prediction future global mean temperature or its impact can be made. 

    The vast majority of scientists DO NOT assert that the burning of fossil fuels lead to catastrophe.  They are NOT panic stricken.

    The alarmism come from primarily three groups that stand to gain by this issue.

    1) politicians gain money and power

    2) Environmentalists gain money for their organization, confirmation of their near religious devotion that man is a destructive force acting upon nature.

    3) Media gains money ,headlines and a confirmation of their ideology.

    The problem is now that scientists OUTSIDE of Climate Physics have jumped the climate change bandwagon and have written papers of climate changing everything under the sun and crony capitalists have grabbed for the subsidies lavishly provided by government for climate change.

    1. Sustainable Sue profile image98
      Sustainable Sueposted 8 months agoin reply to this

      Here's a nice graphic that shows the nature of human impact. In fact, the whole Skeptical Science website is filled with good information:
      https://skepticalscience.com/graphics.php?g=32

    2. wba108@yahoo.com profile image81
      wba108@yahoo.composted 8 months agoin reply to this

      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

  7. tamarawilhite profile image91
    tamarawilhiteposted 8 months ago

    A treaty that would have penalized the US without improving the environment (since China and India could quadruple pollution output without penalty) still being used as policy by other nations to punish the US in other ways like penalizing our exports for not signing.

    1. profile image81
      Hxprofposted 8 months agoin reply to this

      If they follow through, penalizing the US by putting tariffs on our exports, it will lead to trade wars.

  8. hunzala profile image60
    hunzalaposted 8 months ago

    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

    1. profile image81
      Hxprofposted 8 months agoin reply to this

      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.

    2. RJ Schwartz profile image94
      RJ Schwartzposted 8 months agoin reply to this

      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.

  9. WiccanSage profile image95
    WiccanSageposted 8 months ago

    I think there was good reason to challenge the PA and demand renegotiation but not to withdraw... it was not a good deal for America.

    Regardless of whether people think climate change is man-made or a natural cycle, we need to get off the fossil fuels, and we need to work towards more efficient sources of energy.... sources that better meet the world's growing needs, sources that are cheaper and safer.

    So the Paris Accord wasn't great, but pushing for other things, like keeping the coal industry in business, also isn't great.

 
working