President Trump Makes a Statement Regarding the Paris Accord
511 replies, posted
[QUOTE=Pat.Lithium;52303747]fuck me trump speaks like a dumb fuck, how did he get elected[/QUOTE]
He catered to people of similar intellect.
[QUOTE=Winters;52303632]A good portion of the funds from the agreement actually go to private sector green energy companies. On top of that nations that do not submit a plan wont receive funding. Simple as that. To clarify a comitee reviews each plan and distributes funding based on the perceived legitimacy of said plans.
Id like to also address your statement about driving down green energy costs through investment. This I assume could be achieved in the same way that the US keeps gas prices low, and that would be through government subsides. If we have a white house who does not believe in climate change these subsides will simply never come. Without a global moral frame work, lobiests in the US will be able to keep funding in non-renewable energy.[/QUOTE]
Thanks, that's all I literally wanted to confirm with this agreement. Given that they're obligated to put it towards green energy that's fine by me.
Can I get a place that isn't wiki that concisely explains how it works?
[QUOTE=Jake Nukem;52304073]Thanks, that's all I literally wanted to confirm with this agreement. Given that they're obligated to put it towards green energy that's fine by me.
Can I get a place that isn't wiki that concisely explains how it works?[/QUOTE]
I looked pretty closely at the climate comitees site and they provide little info on how the distribution of funds work. The extent of my knowledge comes from courses I've taken on the matter so I honestly could be mistake but I'm inclined to trust the professors. I'll link the site and if I find an explanation for fund distribution I'll link it
[url]https://www.theccc.org.uk/tag/paris-agreement/[/url]
Edit:
This is the closest I could find where they establish that their funding recommendations are based upon a counties policy and the guidelines they set forth. Nothing concrete but far from just throwing money at nations that have no legitimate plans to curve climate change.
[url]https://www.theccc.org.uk/about/our-impacts/[/url]
Apparently, the straw that broke the camel's back was [url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/inside-trumps-climate-decision-after-fiery-debate-he-stayed-where-hes-always-been/2017/06/01/e4acb27e-46db-11e7-bcde-624ad94170ab_story.html?hpid=hp_hp-top-table-main_parisreconstruct-850pm%3Ahomepage%2Fstory&utm_term=.f477681693af]Macron's handshake[/url]
[QUOTE=Lambeth;52304362]Apparently, the straw that broke the camel's back was [url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/inside-trumps-climate-decision-after-fiery-debate-he-stayed-where-hes-always-been/2017/06/01/e4acb27e-46db-11e7-bcde-624ad94170ab_story.html?hpid=hp_hp-top-table-main_parisreconstruct-850pm%3Ahomepage%2Fstory&utm_term=.f477681693af]Macron's handshake[/url][/QUOTE]
I wanna think this is bullshit, but then I remember it's trump...
[QUOTE=Lambeth;52304362]Apparently, the straw that broke the camel's back was [url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/inside-trumps-climate-decision-after-fiery-debate-he-stayed-where-hes-always-been/2017/06/01/e4acb27e-46db-11e7-bcde-624ad94170ab_story.html?hpid=hp_hp-top-table-main_parisreconstruct-850pm%3Ahomepage%2Fstory&utm_term=.f477681693af]Macron's handshake[/url][/QUOTE]
[quote]The fight pit Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Scott Pruitt, chief strategist Stephen K. Bannon and White House Counsel Don McGahn — who all pushed for a total withdrawal — against Ivanka Trump, economic chief Gary Cohn and Secretary of State Rex Tillerson — who argued that the president would have more leverage by remaining an active participant in the climate deal.
During meetings with the president, Bannon, Pruitt and their allies came armed with reams of documents filled with numbers and statistics showing what they said would be the negative effects on the U.S. economy if the United States remained in the climate deal. They were, in the words of one Republican in frequent contact with the White House, “ready to go to trial.”
“They were presenting facts and figures,” Conway said. “They were really important. That was the evidentiary case.”
Some of those opposed to pulling out of the pact, however, said that much of the data the other side presented was either erroneous, scientifically dubious, misleading or out of date.
The Paris pact was a particular passion for Bannon, who spent the past two weeks consumed by the climate deal, including working feverishly from the West Wing after returning early from Trump’s foreign trip, according to two White House officials familiar with the discussions. He pressed his case directly with the president — arguing that the Paris accord was a product of globalism and unpopular with Trump’s base — and also worked with Pruitt to tilt the talks in that direction, providing political ballast to the policy and legal arguments made by others on his side.[/quote]
fuck bannon holy shit
Damn, I wouldn't want my descendants to go through the shit that is to come. Unless things shape up before it's too late, I'm not even going to bother having children. It might sound selfish but I don't want to be on my death bed terrified for the futures of my children.
Yeah at this rate we might just see a surge of eco-terrorism in America.
If all of that is true I'm surprised even Ivanka wasn't able to stop it.
I talked to some trump supporters about this they all say pretty much this
"It's bad for America! China doesn't have to do anything till 2040 while we had to start working on it immediately even when we have the most green energy in the world while China has a lot of pollution!"
1. Oh no! why should WE have to care about the world if another country has pollution!!!
2. China is actively trying to change pretty fast iirc.
Now i'm not completely familiar with the agreement, but isn't it just saying what each country is going to do to lower emissions that harms Earth? I see 0 downsides and only positive things that can come from the actual agreement. Leaving was so stupid.
Luckily it'll take 4 years to withdraw so thats nice.
I like this twitter thread keeps me optimistic
[media]https://twitter.com/JacquelynGill/status/869900910142607360[/media]
[QUOTE=Ricenchicken;52304536]Now i'm not completely familiar with the agreement, but isn't it just saying what each country is going to do to lower emissions that harms Earth? I see 0 downsides and only positive things that can come from the actual agreement. Leaving was so stupid.[/QUOTE]
Not just that, but also asks developed nations to chip in to a pot that's distributed to smaller/poorer nations so that they can also go green. Us leaving the agreement means our share of that contribution into the global pot doesn't exist; literally the world is poorer for it.
Scott Pruit: We're lowering our CO2 via fracking.
[QUOTE=Firgof Umbra;52304558]Not just that, but also asks developed nations to chip in to a pot that's distributed to smaller/poorer nations so that they can also go green. Us leaving the agreement means our share of that contribution into the global pot doesn't exist; literally the world is poorer for it.[/QUOTE]
And it is the poorer nations that will be hit the worst. Its been mentioned time and time again, but the refugee crisis from this is going ot be disastrous and all kinds of awful unless we act decisively [I]right fucking now[/I]. Bangladash is at ludicrously high risk.
But, this stupid fucking partisan bullshit around climate change has been around for years, like when Congress denied the Pentagon the ability to adequately prepare military bases for the effects of climate change.
That's right, the GOP is so remarkably against climate change that they'll [I][URL="http://www.politico.com/agenda/story/2016/06/republicans-trying-to-stop-pentagon-climate-plan-000149"]vote against the military[/URL][/I], which is normally something they circlejerk themselves raw over [sp]despite cutting all kinds of veterans benefits, scaling back VA support, and ignoring calls for reform of Veteran care ayyy lmao[/sp] . Its well-acknowledged by the Pentagon that global instability due to climate change is likely, and this bitter irony is only added to by the fact that Syria - one of few nations to not fucking sign - is likely experiencing a civil war in no small part [I]due to a severe drought[/I] caused by (shockingly) changing climates.
god DAMN am i salty as fuck about this. I was actually going to attempt to write some climate-change mitigation proposals for NASA SBIRs, but convinced myself it wasn't worth it and now feel really bad that I didn't. I bet the funding for these "disappeared", but I still should've tried goddamnit
[QUOTE=elitehakor;52304392][QUOTE]“They were presenting facts and figures,” Conway said. “They were really important. That was the evidentiary case.”
Some of those opposed to pulling out of the pact, however, said that much of the data the other side presented was either erroneous, scientifically dubious, misleading or out of date.
The Paris pact was a particular passion for Bannon, who spent the past two weeks consumed by the climate deal, including working feverishly from the West Wing after returning early from Trump’s foreign trip, according to two White House officials familiar with the discussions. He pressed his case directly with the president — arguing that the Paris accord was a product of globalism and unpopular with Trump’s base — and also worked with Pruitt to tilt the talks in that direction, providing political ballast to the policy and legal arguments made by others on his side.[/QUOTE][/QUOTE]
Jesus christ... SNL's depiction of Bannon as the literal grim reaper is so fucking spot on, it's ridiculous. He's a lying, manipulative, decaying corpse who is working to harm literally all life.
[editline]2nd June 2017[/editline]
[QUOTE=Ricenchicken;52304536]I like this twitter thread keeps me optimistic
[media]https://twitter.com/JacquelynGill/status/869900910142607360[/media][/QUOTE]
Don't forget Nicaragua is only out because they think the Paris Agreement is too weak, and Syria because the country is in ruins. America is the only country on Earth to consciously go against it.
[I]Why Bannon[/I]
:why:
[QUOTE=Jake Nukem;52303172]Climate change is on the fringes sure but they're having a negligible economic impact currently, certainly a lot less than forcefully implementing change would cause right now(If that isn't the case you're welcome to link me some studies and the like so I may educate myself)[/QUOTE]
I don't need studies. Google "Peru floods 2017". We've suffered heavy flooding this year due to unusually strong rains.
We've lost crops, entire towns will have to be rebuilt from the ground (Literally), and dozens of thousands have been displaced. The recovery program will take years. Economical losses, for local and international consumption, are in the millions (The peruvian north is mosty agricultural)
Oh, but it gets better. The rains also caused landslides, which polluted many of our water reservoirs. Our purification systems simply couldn't keep up with the sheer amount of water. We had to ration water in the [I]capital itself[/I]. For [B]three days[/B]. In some places, it was for a [I]week[/I]
Don't sweet talk me about climate change being a problem for later. It's only going to get worse from this point on.
[QUOTE=BlindSniper17;52304732][I]Why Bannon[/I]
:why:[/QUOTE]
He's the physical embodiment of /pol/ . Living in his own fantasy world where everything else is either the Globalist Elite or the "Libcucks". The fact this man is an advisor is terrifying.
[QUOTE=paindoc;52304620]and this bitter irony is only added to by the fact that Syria - one of few nations to not fucking sign - is likely experiencing a civil war in no small part [I]due to a severe drought[/I] caused by (shockingly) changing climates.[/QUOTE]
no, because of muslims :hurr:
[QUOTE=Uber22;52305141]He's the physical embodiment of /pol/ . Living in his own fantasy world where everything else is either the Globalist Elite or the "Libcucks". The fact this man is an advisor is terrifying.[/QUOTE]
... and he's advising this guy on climate change:
[media]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fywmp5oHsyM[/media]
It is impossible for me to watch this video, and then somehow correlate the footage with the word "President"
Can Canada please join the EFTA or something
[QUOTE=Lambeth;52304362]Apparently, the straw that broke the camel's back was [url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/inside-trumps-climate-decision-after-fiery-debate-he-stayed-where-hes-always-been/2017/06/01/e4acb27e-46db-11e7-bcde-624ad94170ab_story.html?hpid=hp_hp-top-table-main_parisreconstruct-850pm%3Ahomepage%2Fstory&utm_term=.f477681693af]Macron's handshake[/url][/QUOTE]
[quote]Some of the efforts to dissuade Trump from withdrawing actually had the reverse effect, further entrenching his original position. When Trump heard advocates arguing that the era of coal was coming to an end — something Cohn told reporters on last week’s foreign trip and also a frequent talking point by some cable news pundits — Trump only became more adamant that pulling out of the Paris pact could help rescue the U.S. coal industry, said a Republican operative in close contact with the White House.
“When he hears people make comments like ‘Coal jobs don’t matter anymore’ or ‘Those are going away,’ he thinks of all those people who got the election wrong and didn’t realize that, no, these people are important to us,” the operative said. “That’s when his populist message kicks in. It pushes him.”[/quote]
Canada should support the United States Climate Alliance, get that shit moving.
[editline]2nd June 2017[/editline]
[QUOTE=KillerJaguar;52305154][/QUOTE]
So the man's ego and Narcissism is so fucking terrible, he's willing to risk the future of this nation to appear correct.
Good.....Fucking....God..... That is text book narcissism.
[QUOTE=rilez;52305151]... and he's advising this guy on climate change:
[media]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fywmp5oHsyM[/media]
It is impossible for me to watch this video, and then somehow correlate the footage with the word "President"[/QUOTE]
Please tell me the laughter in the background is from people going "Holy shit, I can't believe this is happening right now".
Does anyone know where you can read clearly the terms and goals of the Paris Agreement? I hear people in support of leaving it that the US was required to reduce emissions by 26% and that China and India had no such requirements, and that the US had to pay billions of dollars to help smaller countries lower their emissions. Where do these claims come from?
[QUOTE=Sherow_Xx;52305231]Does anyone know where you can read clearly the terms and goals of the Paris Agreement? I hear people in support of leaving it that the US was required to reduce emissions by 26% and that China and India had no such requirements, and that the US had to pay billions of dollars to help smaller countries lower their emissions. Where do these claims come from?[/QUOTE]
You can see the goals for each nation over [url=https://www.c2es.org/international/2015-agreement/indcs]here[/url]
[QUOTE=Sherow_Xx;52305231]Does anyone know where you can read clearly the terms and goals of the Paris Agreement? I hear people in support of leaving it that the US was required to reduce emissions by 26% and that China and India had no such requirements, and that the US had to pay billions of dollars to help smaller countries lower their emissions. Where do these claims come from?[/QUOTE]
Those claims come from rectal cavities.
[URL="http://unfccc.int/paris_agreement/items/9485.php"]In short,[/URL] it's an agreement for everyone to cooperate and collaborate to combat climate change, and for the richer nations to contribute towards a global fund designed to help subsidize poorer nations on their transitions to renewable, non-polluting energy. It's like a global climate change coffee club, where everyone works towards a shared purpose and shares resources.
The Paris Agreement called for the richest developed nations to contribute to the global poor-country-support fund equal to $100 billion a year for at least the years 2020-2025. The US pledged a total of $3 billion, or a tiny fraction of its annual budget. [B]Edit:[/B] [URL="https://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/paris-climate-deal-primer/article27539363/"]Canada pledged $2.65bil and we have about 1/10th the population of the US.[/URL]
[URL="https://www.wired.co.uk/article/what-is-paris-agreement-on-climate-change"]Wired has a "what is it and what's next" article[/URL] that details one of the big problems Trump has with it:
[QUOTE]A significant element of reduced emission policies was the focus on climate taxes on companies. Simply put, the world's worst polluters would be financially accountable for their chemical contribution to climate change. The greater the polluter, the higher the cost - the typical rate set at $150 per tonne of CO2. These rates, designed to improve the quality of air whilst simultaneously creating a new source of revenue, contradict Trump's focus on industrial expansion.[/QUOTE]
Trump campaigned on bringing dirty industry jobs back to America as if traditional steel mills are on the verge of coming back in vogue.
[URL="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris_Agreement"]Wikipedia has a table of everyone's [del]pledges[/del] greenhouse gas emissions:[/URL] China [del]pledged to reduce its emissions by[/del] is responsible for 20.09%. India 4.1%. America 17.89%. The claim that the US was required to reduce emissions by a lot and China and India had to do nothing at all is a straight up [B]lie[/B] (edit: as proven by Lambeth's link, and not my Wikipedia citation). Canada in fact helped bring India to the table as part of trying to repair our damaged reputation after King Harper I pulled us out of the Kyoto Accord.
The agreement has no formal terms to force adherence to targets or punish failure to meet them so [I]technically[/I] there's nothing actually making China and India do anything (nor is there anything making the US do anything), but the agreement is built around a name-and-shame scenario. Everyone [I]should[/I] want to work together for this goal, and the Paris Agreement managed to get [I]every nation in the world[/I] except Syria (too busy with their civil war to assemble a government capable of competently ratifying the agreement) and Nicaragua (wouldn't ratify it because they think it doesn't push hard enough, they're on track to 90% reduction) to agree to the need for climate change to be tackled by everyone. Competitiveness is lost fairly equally if everyone agrees to play by the same rules, and the monetary fund is to help small, developing nations build out their infrastructure to keep up, since their own economies may not be able to afford a complete grid transition to e.g. wind and solar on their own.
The agreement only works as long as everyone agrees to play along. Like the EU, shit collapses if people pull out and refuse to cooperate, only in the case of (not) changing industry to account for climate change, dissidents are now at an advantage because they're fighting dirty and not incurring the costs of cleaner, greener technology. And here we are with the first nation to ditch the Paris Accord because COAL MINING AND COAL SMOG IS BACK, BABY
Thanks for the clarifications Lambeth and elixwhitetail.
[QUOTE=elixwhitetail;52305315][URL="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris_Agreement"]Wikipedia has a table of everyone's pledges:[/URL] China pledged to reduce its emissions by 20.09%. India by 4.1%. America pledged to reduce theirs by 17.89%. The claim that the US was required to reduce emissions by a lot and China and India had to do nothing at all is a straight up [B]lie[/B].[/QUOTE]
I did see that list, and that's how I read it too, but I'm not entirely convinced those numbers listed under [I]"Percentage of greenhouse gases for ratification"[/I] are their pledges? What does the label mean? Why does the full list add up approximately 100%, if each one is just the country's own goal? Why is there a list at the bottom of the countries that aren't in the agreement, and they also have numbers under the exact same label? [I](Syria has 0.21% greenhouse gases 'for ratification', and Nicaragua 0.03%)[/I]
[QUOTE=Sherow_Xx;52305373]I did see that list, and that's how I read it too, but I'm not entirely convinced those numbers listed under [I]"Percentage of greenhouse gases for ratification"[/I] are their pledges? What does the label mean? Why does the full list add up approximately 100%, if each one is just the country's own goal? Why is there a list at the bottom of the countries that aren't in the agreement, and they also have numbers under the exact same label? [I](Syria has 0.21% greenhouse gases 'for ratification', and Nicaragua 0.03%)[/I][/QUOTE]
Researching the actual documentation, it seems I completely misunderstood the meaning of that column. That column is the [I]percentage of global greenhouse gasses emitted by that nation[/I], meaning China is responsible for 20%, America for almost 18%. I'm just illiterate. :badzing:
Lambeth's link actually has the goals, and China has pretty ambitious goals. They're clearly not "required to do nothing" while America is put to the rack.
Yeah, I think what could be the confusing part is China's commitment about [I]"Peaking of carbon dioxide emissions around 2030 and making best efforts to peak early;"[/I], at first glance, from the perspective of someone who doesn't know the background of this, it sure does make you think [I]"Wait, so they're going to continue increasing emissions?"[/I] but it does appear to be a calculated decrease compared to some "business-as-usual" forecast.
And hell, right below that point it says [I]"Lowering carbon dioxide intensity (carbon dioxide emissions per unit of GDP) by 60 to 65 percent from the 2005 level;"[/I] so clearly there is at least one solid number for China. And India has a similarly clearly stated goal: [I]"To reduce the emissions intensity of its GDP by 33 to 35 percent by 2030 from 2005 level."[/I]
The difficulty here seems to be interpreting what exactly those numbers mean. The other countries have goals about decreasing emission [I]intensity[/I], rather than simply reducing total emission. And China's case seems complicated probably because industries are still growing and so it is inevitable that gas emission will increase, even with strong efforts to lower emissions. I do, however, understand how people would feel disheartened by that:
[img]http://i.imgur.com/Rs7eSD0.png[/img]
I can see why someone would look at this and react with a feeling that it's unfair that they 'get to keep increasing their emissions' when others have to decrease theirs. But I'm guessing the explanation is that emissions were already expected to increase drastically in China, whereas that isn't the case in the US, which is apparently already like 9% below the 2005 baseline of emissions.
[url]https://www.wsj.com/articles/putin-backs-trump-on-climate-decision-1496419859[/url]
[quote]ST PETERSBURG, Russia—Russian President Vladimir Putin extended an olive branch to Washington Friday, defending President Donald Trump’s decision to withdraw from the Paris climate accord and urging American businesses to support the U.S. leader.
“Don’t worry, be happy,” Mr. Putin said in English in response to a question about the U.S. exit from the climate-change accord.
The U.S. didn’t need to pull out of the Paris climate accord in part because it is non-binding, the Russian president said, but he defended Mr. Trump’s right to withdraw from the agreement, which Russia has endorsed.
“He said he wants to review the agreement or sign a new one,” Mr. Putin said. “He doesn’t refuse to work on the problem. You shouldn’t make noise about it, but create conditions for cooperation.”[/quote]
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.