The World without the US on Climate Change

[Vitamin]

The would be dictator, Obama committed the U S to reducing emissions 28% by 2025, without submitting it to the Senate. For that reason, if no other, Trump was correct to trash it. It would take draconian authoritarian dictates to attempt the accomplishment of the goal, and for democrats, the authoritarian control of the country is more important than the emissions. Emissions are just the ideology. [Text: Removed]

None of this had anything to do with Paris.

 

[rareboy]

The would be dictator, Obama committed the U S to reducing emissions 28% by 2025, without submitting it to the Senate. For that reason, if no other, Trump was correct to trash it. It would take draconian authoritarian dictates to attempt the accomplishment of the goal, and for democrats, the authoritarian control of the country is more important than the emissions. Emissions are just the ideology. [Text: Removed]

Seriously? Have you learned nothing on your time out?

I'm not going to bother reporting this one, because it is apparent that you only plan on being here for a short time.

 

[Benvolio]

None of this had anything to do with Paris.

The Paris accord purported to commit us to a 28% reduction by 2025, with scant regard for the effects upon our economy and people, and with no participation by Congress.

 

[Vitamin]

The Paris accord purported to commit us to a 28% reduction by 2025, with scant regard for the effects upon our economy and people, and with no participation by Congress.

It was a non-binding agreement and Trump wasn't required to follow through with it all, even if he had signed it.

The real reason he refused to sign the feckless Paris agreement is to serve as a distraction from Russia.

 

[Benvolio]

It was a non-binding agreement and Trump wasn't required to follow through with it all, even if he had signed it.

The real reason he refused to sign the feckless Paris agreement is to serve as a distraction from Russia.

No, he promised during the campaign to withdraw from it or renegotiate. https://www.mediamatters.org/blog/2...s-the-medias-catastrophic-climate-chan/216725

 

[rareboy]

It wasn't a treaty and it wasn't binding. It doesn't need to be 're-negotiated'. The rest of the world has no time to listen to the whiny child at the adults' table, just because he promised his no-information base that there was something else that Obama had done that he's wreck.

It is as though Trump wants to kill off Netflix to bring back Blockbuster.

There was no need to walk away.

But no matter. The US has forfeited any leadership position or even a seat at the table.

 

[luckynumbah7]

No, he promised during the campaign to withdraw from it or renegotiate. https://www.mediamatters.org/blog/2...s-the-medias-catastrophic-climate-chan/216725

And he can do neither because he doesn't seem to know how anything works, Cheeto will long be out of office by the time the usa may withdraw.

 

[gsdx]

And he can do neither because he doesn't seem to know how anything works, Cheeto will long be out of office by the time the usa may withdraw.

He may not have read my post where the US can't even withdraw until AFTER the next election. Bragging about backing out means nothing simply because Trump CAN'T.

 

[Benvolio]

And he can do neither because he doesn't seem to know how anything works, Cheeto will long be out of office by the time the usa may withdraw.

Thank you for confirming that it was a non-entity and the democrat hubbub is much to do about nothing. And The important thing is the democrats cannot try to hold us to it or use it to justify anti-free-enterprise, pro-socialist regulations. The other countries will not be able to uses it against us. Whatever it says, we are out if we say we are out and done with it.

 

[rareboy]

You apparently are about as clueless about the Paris Accord as Trump is.

 

[rareboy]

 

[Benvolio]

Indeed Obama was a babe among wolves.

 

[Telstra]

...until he needs our help.

international logical rule is,
if your Island is sunk, you have to right to move to other countries.

 

[gsdx]

Indeed Obama was a babe among wolves.

Reported for derailing again.

 

[mikey3000]

We are no longer “global warming” but are now “climate changing”.

“Global Warming” only works if the planet is actually warming while “Climate Change” conveniently covers all situations.

So if it rains too much, or snows too much, or is too hot, or is too cold, or is not cold enough, or is not hot enough, or doesn’t rain enough, or it doesn’t snow, it is all down to climate change.
*
And not only “Climate Change” but “Man Made Climate Change”. So all of this catastrophe is caused by us so it is only fair that we are forced to pay for it in some way.

All clear now? Good. Do try to keep up.

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-...ing-agenda-really-about-destroying-capitalism

 

[mikey3000]

Oh, and for the record:

http://insider.foxnews.com/2017/06/...reen-fund-america-paid-billion-united-nations

 

[Kulindahr]

The would be dictator, Obama committed the U S to reducing emissions 28% by 2025, without submitting it to the Senate. For that reason, if no other, Trump was correct to trash it. It would take draconian authoritarian dictates to attempt the accomplishment of the goal, and for democrats, the authoritarian control of the country is more important than the emissions. Emissions are just the ideology. [Text: Removed]

President Obama's pledged target was very conservative and easily doable; in fact it was criticized for not being a lot more than the economy is likely to do anyway just from market demand for renewable energy sources.

Hillary's proposals would have been a moderate challenge, being 50% more per year than Obama's. But nothing "draconian authoritarian" would have been required unless we were to try to follow the Green Party's proposals, which would have been something like five times what Obama called for.

And nothing about the agreement required submission to the Senate.

So... three claims, and I'll go with three Pinochios, four Pinochios, and four Pinochios for them.

 

[Kulindahr]

The Paris accord purported to commit us to a 28% reduction by 2025, with scant regard for the effects upon our economy and people, and with no participation by Congress.

If you look at the numbers it comes to a 2% per year reduction. An energy newsletter I scan on occasion says the U.S. is looking at close to 1.5% annual reduction just from market forces, so only some tweaking would have been required.

As for Congress, they aren't required to weigh in on non-binding agreements subsequent to a treaty they already signed off on.


BTW, this is another bit of evidence you are no lawyer: lawyers know they should do research before making claims.

 

[Kulindahr]

It wasn't a treaty and it wasn't binding. It doesn't need to be 're-negotiated'. The rest of the world has no time to listen to the whiny child at the adults' table, just because he promised his no-information base that there was something else that Obama had done that he's wreck.

It is as though Trump wants to kill off Netflix to bring back Blockbuster.

There was no need to walk away.

But no matter. The US has forfeited any leadership position or even a seat at the table.

Ironically, one of the worst effects of global warming, sea level rise, will primarily hit red states on the Gulf of Mexico, so once more Trump is shafting his own supporters.

 

[Kulindahr]

We are no longer “global warming” but are now “climate changing”.

“Global Warming” only works if the planet is actually warming while “Climate Change” conveniently covers all situations.

So if it rains too much, or snows too much, or is too hot, or is too cold, or is not cold enough, or is not hot enough, or doesn’t rain enough, or it doesn’t snow, it is all down to climate change.
*
And not only “Climate Change” but “Man Made Climate Change”. So all of this catastrophe is caused by us so it is only fair that we are forced to pay for it in some way.

All clear now? Good. Do try to keep up.

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-...ing-agenda-really-about-destroying-capitalism

No "climate change" is the dumbed-down version for the scientifically illiterate: it's the result of global warming, which is happening and being driven by humans in several ways, two of which have nothing to do with greenhouse gases.

Oh -- and I love the lying headline on an article you probably didn't even read, because it doesn't say what the headline claims.