Day 131 - We'll always have Paris

[knowknow456]

The city, not the Agreement. The United States has withdrawn from the climate accord. Another box marked off in the campaign promises filled checklist.

Unlike minds can discuss whether this is good or bad, but I would never want to join a country club that only had Nicaragua and Syria as members.

 

[Merge]

Unlike minds can discuss whether this is good or bad, but I would never want to join a country club that only had Nicaragua and Syria as members.

Just a shame really. No matter your opinion on climate change, we walked away from an agreement that was negotiated and signed by 175 parties... It wasn't even that demanding of the US. Walking away just shows further deterioration of our standing in the world.

Sorry. Renewable energy is the future regardless of the impact on the climate.
We should be investing heavily here so we can be a leader in the industry. We are going to sit back and watch other countries beat us to owning this industry.

 

[shu09]

I see it differently. I see this as removing burdensome government regulation and red tape which will allow our business and people to thrive. This will lead to innovation in the free market as our businesses gradually move away from fossil fuels and towards green energy. It is already happening and it will only accelerate. This is the future. Let our people and companies do the innovating, not government bureaucrats.

 

[cernjSHU]

I see it differently. I see this as removing burdensome government regulation and red tape which will allow our business and people to thrive. This will lead to innovation in the free market as our businesses gradually move away from fossil fuels and towards green energy. It is already happening and it will only accelerate. This is the future. Let our people and companies do the innovating, not government bureaucrats.

What burdensome regulation do you speak of that hurts business???? Such a strange thing to say when CEO's of companies like Exxon, Dow, GE, J&J and of course Elon Musk of Tesla urged Trump not to drop out of the agreement. Hell, his own Sec of State urged him not to get out.

This parroting of what Trump's justification is without an iota of truth.

 

[SPK145]

Shouldn't an agreement such as this, otherwise known as a Treaty, have been put to a vote by the Senate?

And there has been nothing more wrong than the past dire predictions that come form the fascist global climate change cabal.

Wilbur Ross was right, this is nothing more than trying to extract funds from the U.S.

 

[Merge]

I see this as removing burdensome government regulation and red tape which will allow our business and people to thrive.

Same talking points I saw from the GOP reps yesterday, but it is just not true at all. There was nothing in the agreement was a burdensome regulation. There is no red tape that would have prevented businesses or people from thriving. We were setting goals for the future, something to work towards.

This will lead to innovation in the free market as our businesses gradually move away from fossil fuels and towards green energy. It is already happening and it will only accelerate. This is the future. Let our people and companies do the innovating, not government bureaucrats.

Government doesn't need to do the innovating, they need to subsidize the cost just as they did with every other major industry that started in our country.

 

[Bobbie Solo]

Just a shame really. No matter your opinion on climate change, we walked away from an agreement that was negotiated and signed by 175 parties... It wasn't even that demanding of the US. Walking away just shows further deterioration of our standing in the world.

195 countries, I believe.

Bernie, Elizabeth or Joe better run in 2020, in that order of preference, and wipe the floor with this utter baffoon. I hope we aren't too far behind the eight ball in a general sense (climate, economically, Supreme Court picks, police reform...take your pick) by the time he is removed from office, however that may be.

 

[cernjSHU]

Shouldn't an agreement such as this, otherwise known as a Treaty, have been put to a vote by the Senate?

And there has been nothing more wrong than the past dire predictions that come form the fascist global climate change cabal.

Wilbur Ross was right, this is nothing more than trying to extract funds from the U.S.

I happen to agree with you that this should have been voted on the Senate. However, the quirk to this agreement is that it's voluntary. So maybe that is the out for purposes of not getting passed by the Senate.

If the CEO's of most major corporations and banks have urged Trump not to withdraw, who supports the withdrawal except extremists?

Seems if the big corporations are not getting hurt by this. Certainly makes the environment better. We have guidelines that all of the world will follow sans Syria. This move makes absolutely no sense. But so does the whole Trumo administration.

 

[Merge]

Shouldn't an agreement such as this, otherwise known as a Treaty, have been put to a vote by the Senate?

Another talking point from the right yesterday, but no that was not necessary. The president can sign an executive agreement without congress. It was a voluntary agreement and there was nothing to bind us to it... It was just a blueprint and honestly if we missed the target, there would be no repercussions.

It was setting a goal for the future...

I am disappointed that the US walked away from being a global leader, but i am not that upset because leaving the agreement will not hurt us (outside of if we fail to invest in new technology while other countries take the lead) and it has pissed off a lot of people. I hope this is Trump's Obamacare moment. Something his opposition can use against him and win back the house and senate. Majority of Americans supported the agreement, even almost half of Trump voters supported the agreement.

 

[shu09]

Bernie, Elizabeth or Joe better run in 2020

Bernie and Joe aren't running. Bernie will be 79 years old and Joe will be 78 in November of 2020. I'm a fan of Joe (wrote him in as my protest vote last November, in fact), but do we really want a president serving a four or eight year term well into their 80s? His time has come and gone. Trump is already the oldest POTUS ever at age 70. We don't need someone far older.

 

[Merge]

I'm hoping for Franken. I'm a fan, but the debates alone would be incredible.

 

[cernjSHU]

Bernie and Joe aren't running. Bernie will be 79 years old and Joe will be 78 in November of 2020. I'm a fan of Joe (wrote him in as my protest vote last November, in fact), but do we really want a president serving a four or eight year term well into their 80s? His time has come and gone. Trump is already the oldest POTUS ever at age 70. We don't need someone far older.

I agree with you that the "stars" of the Democratic Party are all old. Even Elizabeth Warren would be 70. This is where the Dems have to do better of coming up with someone younger. Please no one say Booker because he has done nothing to have the success politically that he has achieved.

Potential Candidates:

1) Sherrod Brown: He would be a throwback Dem candidate with close ties to rule collar workers. Question is does he have national appeal. I thought this should have been Clinton's VP candidate if was not going to be Bernie.

2) Tim Kaine: I think he is a nice guy but pretty lame and he is as interesting as cardboard.
3) Andrew Cuomo: Not impressive.

 

[shu09]

Those are three uninspiring choices.

 

[SPK145]

t was a voluntary agreement and there was nothing to bind us to it... It was just a blueprint and honestly if we missed the target, there would be no repercussions.

In that case, it's really not even an agreement, it's just uselsss bullshit thjat doesn't meet any real goals, why bother? It wold keep third-world countries as third-world countries as sources of energy are one ther biggest factors he development of nations.

 

[Merge]

In that case, it's really not even an agreement, it's just uselsss bullshit thjat doesn't meet any real goals, why bother? It wold keep third-world countries as third-world countries as sources of energy are one ther biggest factors he development of nations.

The better question is why back out? What do we gain by doing so? We will not help fund a shift to clean energy from less developed countries... so sure we may save some money eventually but not something we would actually notice economically.

It was simple, requiring very little from us. It was an opportunity to affirm our position as a leader of the free world and this symbolic move hurts our standing.

I would be more upset if I wasn't seeing pushback from some Trump supporters. If his approval ratings keep dropping, republican leadership will be turning in him soon to save their own asses in 2018.

 

[shu09]

It was an opportunity to affirm our position as a leader of the free world and this symbolic move hurts our standing.

If you're going to criticize me for using talking points, please don't use meaningless lines like this. It has zero effect on "American leadership." Everyone knows we're the most powerful country on earth and that isn't changing.

 

[Merge]

If you're going to criticize me for using talking points, please don't use meaningless lines like this. It has zero effect on "American leadership." Everyone knows we're the most powerful country on earth and that isn't changing.

Power does not equal leadership.

When countries issue a joint statement refuting Trumps claim that he can renegotiate the deal for america... we look foolish.

When macron comes out an hour after the statement telling our scientific community that they have a home in France... we look foolish.

We lack the leadership to see that the future of energy will happen with government funding. We should investing in it hear attracting the best and brightest from around the globe.

 

[Merge]

Sorry, Saying we lack leadship was not a meaningless line. It was a recognition that other countries are going to beat us to inevitable innovation. I think it's a mistake.

 

[SPK145]

Sorry, Saying we lack leadship was not a meaningless line. It was a recognition that other countries are going to beat us to inevitable innovation. I think it's a mistake.

Sounds exactly like a left talking point to me.

 

[Merge]

Sounds exactly like a left talking point to me.

Might be, I'm not sure but it is the same opinion I have shared on this board many times regarding public investment in clean energy. I have been saying we should be the leader in this industry for years.

Having Macron invite frustrated American scientists to France just solidifies my opinion.

 

[Pirata]

I would never want to join a country club that only had Nicaragua and Syria as members.

Let's not forget the Holy See.

 

[Pirata]

The impetus for Trump to withdraw from the agreement has little to do with climate change.

1. It was an executive agreement signed by Obama and not a Treaty ratified by congress. That is a natural for Trump to want to undo.

2. The agreement has voluntary compliance and voluntary contribution. Trump's position is that the US will comply and pay while other nations don't comply, don't pay, and receive benefits and funds (projects).

3. For Trump, the big rub starts to occur when the US is shipping funds off to the Solomon Islands for a hydro electric plant. This is a bit of global pork and his stance is clearly against pork in general. There are two fundamental views here:

a. Should we let the free market and capitalism decide when it is profitable to replace diesel generated power in the Solomon Islands?​

b. Should we let government intervene and attempt accelerate/seed the process?
​

There are valid arguments pro and con on both sides. We have faced this issue before in other industries.

 

[knowknow456]

Let's not forget the Holy See.

I am not sure I understand your reference.

 

[cernjSHU]

The impetus for Trump to withdraw from the agreement has little to do with climate change.

1. It was an executive agreement signed by Obama and not a Treaty ratified by congress. That is a natural for Trump to want to undo.

2. The agreement has voluntary compliance and voluntary contribution. Trump's position is that the US will comply and pay while other nations don't comply, don't pay, and receive benefits and funds (projects).

3. For Trump, the big rub starts to occur when the US is shipping funds off to the Solomon Islands for a hydro electric plant. This is a bit of global pork and his stance is clearly against pork in general. There are two fundamental views here:

a. Should we let the free market and capitalism decide when it is profitable to replace diesel generated power in the Solomon Islands?​

b. Should we let government intervene and attempt accelerate/seed the process?
​

There are valid arguments pro and con on both sides. We have faced this issue before in other industries.

You are going to let the free market dictate this? Really? Free market will always choose the cheapest and most profitable form of energy without regard to impact. Moreover, global corporations wanted the US to stay in the Paris agreement, i.e. Exxon wanted us to stay in the agreement. So that argument is specious and a complete fallacy.

 

[Pirata]

You are going to let the free market dictate this? Really?

To quote a famous rabbi, "You say these things". I simply framed two sides of an argument. Really.

 

[Piratz]

If citizens and businesses agree with the goals and ambition of the Paris Accord, they will do it anyway. They don't nee the government's blessing. We'll see. Most of the details of that agreement are all common sense type of practices to reduce our pollution.

The real takeaway from the Accord was raising awareness and a commitment to address the topic.

Unless, of course, you don't think it matters how much we pollute. To draw a parallel, there was also a time when our very own U.S. workers were exposed to harmful toxins and conditions. Many at that time were saying it's not a problem and the government should stay out of business. Personally, I think these types of environmental matters and standards are right in the wheelhouse of a government along with defense, some infrastructure, etc. But at this point you cannot even get reasonable people to agree on whether or not it's a problem!

 

[Pirata]

But at this point you cannot even get reasonable people to agree on whether or not it's a problem!

Quite true, albeit, I would distinguish basic pollution vs. carbon footprint and global warming.

I don't think anyone would argue that pollution cannot be tolerated. Things like chemical groundwater waste, etc.

With global warming and ozone layer, the argument has two extremes.

One side says the planet has experienced and survived periodic climate shifts and this is nothing more than one of those shifts.

The other side says the earth is warming at an alarming rate and the planted is doomed.

The climate shifters accuse the warmers of using a contrived problem to further an agenda and spend money on inefficient and non cost effective technology.

The warmers accuse the climate shifters of being capitalist pigs who are willing to kill the earth for the sake of profit.

Instead of intelligent discussion, we dig into positions and spiral into endless, unproductive arguments, name calling and my favorite, "so your saying that you want......."

 

[HALL85]

Quite true, albeit, I would distinguish basic pollution vs. carbon footprint and global warming.

I don't think anyone would argue that pollution cannot be tolerated. Things like chemical groundwater waste, etc.

With global warming and ozone layer, the argument has two extremes.

One side says the planet has experienced and survived periodic climate shifts and this is nothing more than one of those shifts.

The other side says the earth is warming at an alarming rate and the planted is doomed.

The climate shifters accuse the warmers of using a contrived problem to further an agenda and spend money on inefficient and non cost effective technology.

The warmers accuse the climate shifters of being capitalist pigs who are willing to kill the earth for the sake of profit.

Instead of intelligent discussion, we dig into positions and spiral into endless, unproductive arguments, name calling and my favorite, "so your saying that you want......."

You have a lot of nerve coming on this board and spouting a non-partisan view....

 

[chickenbox]

Except calling it two sides is akin to saying there are two sides of a grape: the skin and everything else. High-ninety-whatever percent of scientists say we are on the existential expressway to global oblivion. The remaining teeny tiny minority says we are not (actually, some in this group say we are, but that it's natural and not our fault, as if that offers an iota of justification for not trying to fight back).

 

[SPK145]

High-ninety-whatever percent of scientists say we are on the existential expressway to global oblivion.

They've been saying that for years and none of their dire predictions has come close to being correct.

 

[chickenbox]

Actually, what has already come true has even outpaced previous dire projections.

 

[shu09]

High-ninety-whatever percent of scientists say we are on the existential expressway to global oblivion.

Please stop with this total garbage hysteria.

And how would we "fight back?" It is unbelievably arrogant for the human race to believe it can control the earth's climate. Hubris comes in all forms.

 

[Piratz]

Like most things, this topic gets thrown into the extremism and hyperbole so everyone can say they're smarter than everyone else. People of science make outlandish predictions. People like Al Gore doom us in 10 years, 11 years ago.

It really undermines the argument that there is a problem. It isn't a ruse. Everyone can age that at some point there is a bill due on zapping the resources from Earth. It's not an infinite deal. The planet is ours to use certainly, question is how do we want to do that? How reckless do we want to be? Science is much better by the year and we have a better grasp on what this all means now than we did in previous decades. But instead of resolving that question reasonably we spend too much time jockeying around those comments. America101.

 

[shu09]

Good post Piratz. I am all for clean water, air and energy. That is the way of the future and will prove to be economically and environmentally best, even it if hasn't already.

What I can't stand is those on the extremes who talk about global warming (oops, I forgot, "climate change") as a threat to civilization. It is not. Will it cause disruption? Possibly, if the ice sheets do substantially melt and there is water rise along the coast. But we'll just have to adapt to that, as animal specials on this planet have done for eons. It is ridiculous to think that humans can counteract the natural warming and cooling cycle of the planet over hundreds and thousands of years.

Want to talk about real threats to our civilization? Let's start with the 15,000 nuclear weapons on this planet (over 90% of them under the control of just two countries) and the humans and computers who control them. Then we can move on to a giant asteroid strike, a bolt from the blue. Those are real threats to life on earth, not global warming.

 

[Piratz]

Good post Piratz. I am all for clean water, air and energy. That is the way of the future and will prove to be economically and environmentally best, even it if hasn't already.

What I can't stand is those on the extremes who talk about global warming (oops, I forgot, "climate change") as a threat to civilization. It is not. Will it cause disruption? Possibly, if the ice sheets do substantially melt and there is water rise along the coast. But we'll just have to adapt to that, as animal specials on this planet have done for eons. It is ridiculous to think that humans can counteract the natural warming and cooling cycle of the planet over hundreds and thousands of years.

Want to talk about real threats to our civilization? Let's start with the 15,000 nuclear weapons on this planet (over 90% of them under the control of just two countries) and the humans and computers who control them. Then we can move on to a giant asteroid strike, a bolt from the blue. Those are real threats to life on earth, not global warming.

There are also more urgent environmental situations in front of us that arise regularly, from Flint to Long Island this week. While the big shot businessmen or famous people will dump millions into candidates, maybe they could help in those instances as well? Lol

I agree in general. The one specific point I would make about global warming and/or climate change is that obviously human innovation trumps any other species, particularly if you look at the impact of the past 200 years or Industrial Revolution forward. The advent of machinery, the type of chemicals now dumped into the soil or air, all of these things are a byproduct of our progress and was a game changer for the planet.

Getting through what that actually means scientifically is becoming a lost cause with all the politics.

 

[HALL85]

I'm with Piratz and shu09 on this....less grandstanding and more common sense will solve our big problems. Not sure it gets to the level of threats of life on earth, but upwards of 60,000 deaths relating to opioids last year (more than car accidents and guns) and the curve looks like a hockey stick. By 2020, that number will exceed 100,000 (and I take no joy in being right). Solutions are all within our control. Nothing environmental; nothing from foreign interests; shouldn't be a partisan issue....why are we not addressing it?

 

[Piratz]

Bingo, HALL85. It's an epidemic. This country has so many issues that would appeal to the common good and really connect a politician to the people. That is one.

But to really work hard and build compromise to get the country moving forward would require serious people who want to work and be productive. Those are not our current politicians. Nothing is serious with them; it's all game. Beholden to their own special interests and reelection campaigns that they got so caught up in the political game that they are totally incompetent.

If they could apply their partisan passion on display during both investigations of HRC and Trump to actual issues then we could maybe get somewhere.

BTW when did Gov. Christie become interested in addiction?

 

[Bobbie Solo]

Probably like most other right wing politicians, only when the issue affects someone close to them. Their empathy doesn't extend pass that which is right in front of their face. This has occurred with gay rights issues many times over the years. A lack of empathy from that side is the biggest hold-up to getting more positive legislation passed, followed by greed of course.

 

[HALL85]

Probably like most other right wing politicians, only when the issue affects someone close to them. Their empathy doesn't extend pass that which is right in front of their face. This has occurred with gay rights issues many times over the years. A lack of empathy from that side is the biggest hold-up to getting more positive legislation passed, followed by greed of course.

And the king of blind partisanship has spoken....

 

[Pirata]

BTW when did Gov. Christie become interested in addiction?

Closer to home than we may have realized.

http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/am...tle-against-opioid-addiction-personal-n740066