Trump makes U.S. 'global leader in emissions reductions'

1. 95

   Readmikenowposted 4 years ago

   Where are all the green groups?  If obama had done something like this is would be in the news for a solid 48 hour news cycle and then some. Proving it's not success that matters but who succeeds that is important to those on the left.
   
   Under President Donald Trump, the United States led the world in reducing carbon-dioxide emissions in 2019, but don’t expect Greta Thunberg to give him a hug any time soon.
   
   International Energy Agency data released earlier this month showing that U.S. emissions dropped by 2.9% last tear failed to make an impression with Democrats, environmentalists and climate activists, who either shrugged off the data or argued that Mr. Trump’s climate-denialism was somehow thwarted.
   
   
   https://m.washingtontimes.com/news/2020 … K7_eqd8XUA

   replyreport
   1. 0

      promisemposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      Only because Trump demolished our manufacturing sector with his trade war.
      
      https://www.cnbc.com/2019/10/01/us-manu … ecade.html
      
      https://www.vox.com/2019/1/8/18174082/u … sions-2018

      replyreport
      1. 95

         Readmikenowposted 4 years agoin reply to this

         I don't know if you read the links you provide, but I do.
         
         CNBC is hardly an unbiased source.  They are as left wing as the NYT.  The article alleges a decrease in manufacturing, but doesn't connect it to a decrease in emissions.
         
         The reason for it supplied by President Donald Trump could also the cause of it. 
         
         (From Your CNBC article)
         
         “President Donald Trump blamed high interest rates and a strong dollar for the weakness in manufacturing, saying in a tweet Tuesday that the Federal Reserve “allowed the Dollar to get so strong ... that our manufacturers are being negatively affected. Fed Rate too high.”
         
         VOX is REALLY not a unbiased source.  They depend on information provided by the Rhodium Group.  This is a Democrat funded and operated organization with a political agenda, hardly unbiased.
         
         “The American Climate Prospectus was put out by the Rhodium Group in 2014. Rhodium Group analysts put out an updated version of their climate study in June 2017.
         
         Steyer was the single largest political donor in the 2016 election cycle, contributing more than $91 million to Democrats and liberals, according to the Center for Responsive Politics (CRP).
         
         Steyer gained notoriety funding anti-fossil fuel campaigns, starting with his opposition to the Keystone XL oil pipeline. Steyer also founded NextGen Climate Action, which was created to making global warming a top tier election issue.
         Most recently, Steyer has pumped money into a campaign to impeach President Donald Trump.”
         
         https://dailycaller.com/2017/10/24/cong … est-donor/
         
         So, these two article have failed to make your point that emissions have decreased because of a decrease in manufacturing.  These are nothing more that biased misinformation.

         replyreport
         1. 0

            promisemposted 4 years agoin reply to this

            Right, Trump is always quick to blame someone else for his own incompetence.
            
            Is Larry Kudlow a liberal? He was one of CNBC's most prominent anchors before becoming Trump's chief economic guru.
            
            More to the point, do you deny that industry produces pollution and that U.S. manufacturing declined last year?

            replyreport
      2. 86

         Sharlee01posted 4 years agoin reply to this

         Your info was from a well known left bias institution the Rhodium Group out of New York, that frequently repeats debunked arguments on climate impact. Poor reference resource, and   
         CNBC... I have no respect for a word they print.
         
         ":Kelly McCusker, Research Associate, Rhodium Group and Climate Impact Lab:
         Repeating a version of a debunked argument against climate change science, this biased and misleading political article states that the cancellation of an Arctic research cruise due to increased sea ice at one time and in one region proves climate scientists don’t know anything about climate change over 100 years, which is patently false. The article misrepresents many aspects of our current understanding and is written in a biased manner, using phrases such as “climate change activists [sic] scientists” and “bleeding-heart liberals”."
         
         https://climatefeedback.org/evaluation/ … jamin-arie

         replyreport
         1. 0

            promisemposted 4 years agoin reply to this

            You didn't answer my questions. Again.

            replyreport
   2. 86

      Sharlee01posted 4 years agoin reply to this

      This is great news. I had read the article you posted the other day, and thought the media would have to cover it. Thought wrong... LOL

      replyreport
      1. 0

         promisemposted 4 years agoin reply to this

         Why would responsible media cover fake news?

         replyreport
         1. 86

            Sharlee01posted 4 years agoin reply to this

            https://www.iea.org/articles/global-co2 … ns-in-2019
            
            International Energy Agency’s (IEA) February 2020
            Not fake news when it is in the proper context. Unless you do not respect or believe the IEA.
            
            "The United States SAW THE LARGEST DECLINE in energy-related CO2 emissions in 2019 on a COUNTRY BASIS – a fall of 140 Mt, or 2.9%, to 4.8 Gt. US emissions are now down almost 1 Gt from their peak in the year 2000, the largest absolute decline by any country over that period. A 15% reduction in the use of coal for power generation underpinned the decline in overall US emissions in 2019. Coal-fired power plants faced even stronger competition from natural gas-fired generation, with benchmark gas prices an average of 45% lower than 2018 levels. As a result, gas increased its share in electricity generation to a record high of 37%. Overall electricity demand declined because demand for air-conditioning and heating was lower as a result of milder summer and winter weather."

            replyreport
            1. 0

               promisemposted 4 years agoin reply to this

               Thanks. And did manufacuring, which produces major air pollution, decline as well in 2019?
               
               Did pollution jump in 2018 after three years of decline as reported by major agencies in the articles I linked?
               
               U.S. emissions are down on a long-term basis because of Obama and not because of Trump. A bad economy doesn't make Trump a hero.

               replyreport
               1. 95

                  Readmikenowposted 4 years agoin reply to this

                  If there is a correlation between lower manufacturing and a decrease in emissions, I would like to see it.  I have a feeling you wouldn't be able to get any such proof from a source that is not biased toward the left.

                  replyreport
                  1. 0

                     promisemposted 4 years agoin reply to this

                     Likewise, you didn't answer my questions.
                     
                     Nor would you accept any source on anything except for Fox News.
                     
                     That said, I'm sure you'll find some explanation for why the EPA is a leftist organization.
                     
                     https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/source … -emissions

                     replyreport
                     1. 95

                        Readmikenowposted 4 years agoin reply to this

                        Interesting how the article that started the thread is from the Washington Times.  The same information could be found in CNN. 
                        
                        Interesting how the article you provided says  “The largest source of greenhouse gas emissions from human activities in the United States is from burning fossil fuels for electricity, heat, and transportation.”
                        
                        I find it fascinating how manufacturing isn't mentioned.

                        replyreport
                        1. 73

                           tsadjatkoposted 4 years agoin reply to this

                           Great points Mike. Of course TDS never Trumpers will come out of the woodwork to blame anything on Trump. It’s hilarious but predictable.
                           From what I’ve read the current outlook for manufacturing in the United States is complicated.
                           
                           On the one hand, manufacturing doesn’t wield as large an influence on the U.S. economy as it once did — the sector has declined substantially in the past several decades, not just under Trump. The upside is that a recent slowdown in the sector might not put a halt to the longest economic expansion in U.S. history, as some fear.

                           replyreport
                           1. 95

                              Readmikenowposted 4 years agoin reply to this

                              I agree with you.  The structure of the American economy is changing.

                              replyreport
               2. 86

                  Sharlee01posted 4 years agoin reply to this

                  To answer your questions.
                  
                  No manufacturing jobs did not decline in 2019 in fact they increased.
                  " In Trump's First 30 Months, Manufacturing Up By 314,000 Jobs Over Obama; Which States Are Hot?"
                  
                  "In the last 30 months of President Obama’s term, manufacturing employment grew by 185,000 or 1.5%. In President Trump’s first 30 months, manufacturers added 499,000 jobs, expanding by 4.0%. In the same 30-month time span during the mature, post-recovery phase of the business cycle, some 314,000 more manufacturing jobs were added under Trump than under Obama, a 170% advantage" (Forbes Jul 10, 2019, )
                  
                    https://www.forbes.com/sites/chuckdevor … 79e0a52677
                  
                  Your question "Did pollution jump in 2018 after three years of decline as reported by major agencies in the articles I linked?"
                  
                  Your information was from an organization with a poor reputation for facts.
                  :
                  Your info was from a well known left bias institution the Rhodium Group out of New York, that frequently repeats debunked arguments on climate impact. Poor reference resource, and   
                  CNBC... I have no respect for a word they print.
                  
                  " Kelly McCusker, Research Associate, Rhodium Group and Climate Impact Lab:
                  Repeating a version of a debunked argument against climate change science, this biased and misleading political article states that the cancellation of an Arctic research cruise due to increased sea ice at one time and in one region proves climate scientists don’t know anything about climate change over 100 years, which is patently false. The article misrepresents many aspects of our current understanding and is written in a biased manner, using phrases such as “climate change activists [sic] scientists” and “bleeding-heart liberals”."
                  
                  https://climatefeedback.org/evaluation/ … jamin-arie
                  
                  "U.S. emissions are down on a long-term basis because of Obama and not because of Trump. A bad economy doesn't make Trump a hero.?
                  
                  This is your opinion. I am not willing to argue on the basis of one's opinion.

                  replyreport
2. 76

   Valeantposted 4 years ago

   Just wondering which Trump policies made us the leader.
   
   Was it the one where Trump fought California's right to make stricter emissions standards:
   https://www.nytimes.com/2019/09/17/clim … aiver.html
   
   Maybe it was his executive order that rolled back regulations on carbon emissions:
   https://www.npr.org/2017/03/28/52182348 … -emissions
   
   Or was it any of these 15 ways Trump rolled back environmental protections:
   https://www.nationalgeographic.com/envi … vironment/
   
   I mean, you made the claim Trump was responsible for us being a leader in this area.  The least you can do is provide the policies that led us there.  I bet that all the policies of his predecessor are the reasons for the US being a leader, not those of Trump.  Just another example of Trump supporters having some ODS.

   replyreport
   1. 95

      Readmikenowposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      Since we've had a reduction in emissions with President Donald Trump rolling back alleged environmental protections, emission standards, they obviously weren't doing much of anything for the environment.
      
      From the article
      
      "At the same time, he said, it’s worth pointing out that the decline has come not as a result of government crackdowns on energy and industry, but rather from technological innovations such as fracking, driven by the private sector and a favorite target of liberal climate hawks."

      replyreport
      1. 76

         Valeantposted 4 years agoin reply to this

         From the article, that quote was from a guy who works for the Heartland Institute.  The Heartland Institute is an American conservative and libertarian public policy think tank founded in 1984. 
         
         In the 1990s, the Heartland Institute worked with the tobacco company Philip Morris to attempt to discredit the health risks of secondhand smoke and to lobby against smoking bans.  Since the 2000s, the Heartland Institute has been a leading promoter of climate change denial. It rejects the scientific consensus on climate change, and says that policies to fight it would be damaging to the economy.
         
         First, the Washington Examiner is a right-wing rag.  The second, they quote climate deniers as their sources.  This is who you base your conclusion on?  And still didn't see any Trump policies in your posts.

         replyreport
         1. 95

            Readmikenowposted 4 years agoin reply to this

            Thanks for providing Democrat talking points.
            
            Yeah, there are people in touch enough with reality to know how policies to alleged climate change, previously global warming, would wreck the economy.  That is reality.
            
            Here is a policy of the administration of President Donald Trump that is obviously working quite well.
            
            'Alongside the Agenda's release, the administration is reporting that agencies continue to meet Trump’s requirement (initiated in Executive Order 13771 on Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs) to eliminate two significant regulations for every new one added."
            
            
            https://www.forbes.com/sites/waynecrews … 297ec3d404

            replyreport
            1. 76

               Valeantposted 4 years agoin reply to this

               So, to back up your false claim, you note that fears of a cost to combat climate change and cutting regulations led to a reduction in emissions?  Wow.  Brilliance.

               replyreport
               1. 60

                  Randy Godwinposted 4 years agoin reply to this

                  Stupid in the extreme!! What a Trump claim!

                  replyreport
               2. 95

                  Readmikenowposted 4 years agoin reply to this

                  Most people who scream about alleged climate change only scream about climate change.  If they were serious, they'd eliminate fossil fuels from their life.  That means no longer driving a gas powered car, taking public transportation such as using airplanes, trains or buses or even using the products created from fossil fuels.  Guess what?  That would include no longer using a cell phone or computer.  Unless they're willing to do that, they're as much of the problem as anyone.
                  
                  Most climate change whiners are just people who need some way to make themselves feel good about themselves.  They are simply hypocrites who squak about what they want others to do to save the planet.
                  
                  Hard to pay attention to such emotionally needy hypocrites trying to find a way to validate their existence. I see it all the time, and it makes me sad.

                  replyreport
            2. 73

               tsadjatkoposted 4 years agoin reply to this

               Mike, I admire your ability to persevere.

               replyreport
               1. 95

                  Readmikenowposted 4 years agoin reply to this

                  Thank you.  NEVER give up!  As they say in Latin Numquam dedite.

                  replyreport
3. 95

   Readmikenowposted 4 years ago

   The most frustrating thing for people on the left is that we are on to them and their games.  We know their pattern of behavior and struggle to take them serious. 
   
   "There is an interesting political tactic often employed by the Left, and it follows a predictable pattern. First, identify a problem most of us can agree on. Second, elevate the problem to a crisis. Third, propose an extreme solution to said crisis that inevitably results in a massive transfer of power to government authorities. Fourth, watch as conservatives take the bait and vociferously reject the extreme solutions proposed. Fifth and finally, accuse those same conservatives of being too heartless or too stupid to solve the original problem on which we all thought we agreed."
   
   https://www.nationalreview.com/2020/03/ … rwz4JiK_9o

   replyreport