U.S. Politics

[Miamipuck]

If Trump was saying "You know what, this bill is inconsequential, let's meet and hash out something better" there'd be a lot less to say.

He pulled out of the accord--that has demonstratively been working--and insists that global warming isn't real.

This is after being pushed by 22 United States Senators and against the will of his own cabinet and prominent US business leaders.

But please, keep defending him for doing the "right" thing for the "wrong" reasons.

I saved you the trouble earlier..........

Come to the tailgate so I can call you an unqualified idiot to your face, rather than bothering to type it out.

[Derek Smalls]

The bill isn't good.

Can anybody honestly say that it's reasonable to be a part of a vague bill that completely lacks specific actions and consequences? Or should we want something more concrete

Sure, something more concrete might be better. That's pretty much why Nicaragua did not agree to the deal - they wanted more sanctions on countries who didn't follow the rules that closely.

I'd be fine if Trump was working to make a more concrete deal. But that's not the case. The guy who said climate change is a hoax and surrounded himself with climate change deniers is not going to do that.

The point of the Paris accord is basically to get every nation on the same page that global warming is bad, climate change is happening, and we should try to work together to prevent the temperature from climbing 1.5 degrees Celsius. Was it largely symbolic? Sure, but why leave it? Why not work to make it better?

[Johnny English]

The bill isn't good.

Can anybody honestly say that it's reasonable to be a part of a vague bill that completely lacks specific actions and consequences? Or should we want something more concrete

I think it's funny that Tommy peddled some reductive bullshit about how it's just an exercise in other countries taking money from the US and you jumped on with even less understanding of the aims, intent and process of the Paris Accord. (And stop calling it a bill. Bills form laws, this is a multipartite agreement.)

Go and educate yourself a little about what the Paris Accord is, what it does and doesn't do, and then come back and tell me why you think it's bad.

[mj2sexay]

You have to respect mj2's commitment to his craft: posting multiple paragraphs at a time of ill-informed, immature crap that no one wants to read.

Ahahaha, and you're a fountain of intelligence. By the way, anytime you want to refute anything I have to say, it'll be the first. See now, ill-informed would be continually pounding the drum of Russia, bitching about Kushner setting up a back channel to the Russians because WAPO said so. The very same publication that has done nothing but rely on anonymous sources with no corroboration, the very same publication that STILL employs Millbank and Capehart despite it being proven that they're both compromised due to their relationship and communication with the DNC. How many stories is Josh Rogin going to be forced to retract this year?

Just for clarification by the way, I do enjoy how everyone is worried about Kushner setting up said back channel (which has yet to be proven, as there are reports the RUSSIANS requested it in order to discuss a one off conversation about Syria), when A. this is the normal course of business between super-powers since the days of RFK, and B. Our last glorious leader set up backchannels with Iran as a private citizen.

Since I'm not one to fail to live up to expectations of immaturity, eat excrement doofus.

[Miamipuck]

Ahahaha,
Since I'm not one to fail to live up to expectations of immaturity, eat excrement doofus.

This is an acceptable post for this site.....I deleted all the unnecessary excrement. lol

[Miamipuck]

I think it's funny that Tommy peddled some reductive bullshit about how it's just an exercise in other countries taking money from the US and you jumped on with even less understanding of the aims, intent and process of the Paris Accord. (And stop calling it a bill. Bills form laws, this is a multipartite agreement.)

Go and educate yourself a little about what the Paris Accord is, what it does and doesn't do, and then come back and tell me why you think it's bad.

When has that stopped him from interjecting, ever?

[dcm1602]

I think it's funny that Tommy peddled some reductive bullshit about how it's just an exercise in other countries taking money from the US and you jumped on with even less understanding of the aims, intent and process of the Paris Accord. (And stop calling it a bill. Bills form laws, this is a multipartite agreement.)

Go and educate yourself a little about what the Paris Accord is, what it does and doesn't do, and then come back and tell me why you think it's bad.

I know you're a fan of this site

https://www.google.com/amp/s/fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-paris-climate-agreement-would-be-a-great-first-step-if-this-were-1995/amp/

It doesn't directly agree with me, but makes the same point that it's vague and not concrete in a round about way

[mj2sexay]

I think it's funny that Tommy peddled some reductive bullshit about how it's just an exercise in other countries taking money from the US and you jumped on with even less understanding of the aims, intent and process of the Paris Accord. (And stop calling it a bill. Bills form laws, this is a multipartite agreement.)

Go and educate yourself a little about what the Paris Accord is, what it does and doesn't do, and then come back and tell me why you think it's bad.

So its a treaty!

Well, then good riddance, it wasn't ratified correctly to begin with.

[Johnny English]

Dude. Don't just post the first link Google gives you. Read about the agreement, and tell me what you think rather than just parroting your hero Tommy.

[Derek Smalls]

I know you're a fan of this site

https://www.google.com/amp/s/fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-paris-climate-agreement-would-be-a-great-first-step-if-this-were-1995/amp/

It doesn't directly agree with me, but makes the same point that it's vague and not concrete in a round about way

I don't disagree with that, but Trump isn't leaving the agreement to make it better. He doesn't earn the benefit of the doubt.

[Johnny English]

So its a treaty!

Well, then good riddance, it wasn't ratified correctly to begin with.

Because Obama bypassed the Senate to ratify it, or because there are still a number of other countries yet to ratify?

[dcm1602]

Dude. Don't just post the first link Google gives you. Read about the agreement, and tell me what you think rather than just parroting your hero Tommy.

.

It's not but it says exactly that. It's vague, unrealistic, and it's basically saying let's meet every 5 years and talk about how we can do better.

I don't like the idea of the United States entering a vague agreement with a plethora of other nations and then ending up footing the bill subsidizing the global war on climate change disproportionately.

[Johnny English]

then ending up footing the bill subsidizing the global war on climate change disproportionately.

Explain why you think that the Paris Agreement can make this happen.

[dcm1602]

This sums it up pretty well

As ambitious as this sounds, the agreement contains no binding rules on how to meet this (or any) temperature goal.  1 All greenhouse gas emission targets are voluntary and left to individual countries to determine. This choose-your-own-emissions strategy skirts the political problems that disarmed the Kyoto Protocol, but it may have also rendered the Paris agreement too weak to prevent widespread climate catastrophe. The pledges submitted thus far leave a scary gap between what’s needed and what countries aspire to do.

The numbers show that until nations implement more stringent emission controls, the 1.5 and 2 degree targets are nothing more than wishful thinking. “It’s just bullshit for them to say: ‘We’ll have a 2C warming target and then try to do a little better every five years,’ ” climate scientist James Hansen told the Guardian. “It’s just worthless words. There is no action, just promises. As long as fossil fuels appear to be the cheapest fuels out there, they will be continued to be burned.”

[dcm1602]

Explain why you think that the Paris Agreement can make this happen.

Well for one the United States along with other wealthy countries pledges over 100 billion by 2020 to other nations to combat climate change. You damn well know who would be paying more of that than everybody else

And China and India wouldn't have to even start decreasing their carbon footprint until 2030 putting them at an economic advantage over the United States.

If you want a an international carbon tax which outlines the %s and criteria for every nation to make clean energy more cost effective and competitive I'm OK with that as a means to combat global warming.