Treaties should be approved by the Senate.
Treaties should be presented to the Senate for consent. Obama didn't even do that. Trump could have, but it would be a somewhat risk that 20 RINOs would listen to brayers on MSM and approve it.
Article 2, Section 2: He shall have power, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, to make treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur
The Paris "Agreement" is a joke. Essentially, every country gets to pick its own benchmarks. So, surprise, surprise, the benchmarks are extremely close to what countries were already projected to hit, and well within the range of possibility without any government interference at all. The developing world, of course, gets to keep burning fossil fuels like crazy (as they should--climate change is a fair price to pay for bringing billions of people out of abject poverty).
The real purpose of the accord is to allow world leaders to score political points by showing that they care about climate change, without actually doing anything. Here's a useful rule of thumb: If every country in the world except for 2 have joined an agreement, then it's not a real agreement; it's theater. Nicaragua, incidentally, saw through the farce and wanted none of it. It's actually surprising that more climate change activists aren't opposed to the agreement. It's like they too care more about virtue signaling than about doing anything meaningful
So because the agreement was such a joke, there aren't any real (non-political) costs of leaving. Inside the agreement or outside it, every country is going to do what it was going to do anyway. The U.S. isn't getting "left behind" in this case because nothing meaningful is actually happening. (As an aside, when people talk about the U.S. being "left behind," try to unpack what they're saying. It's a cliche from negotiation theory, but it isn't applicable in every case where someone chooses not to participate in a negotiation. The key question is whether an agreement will be reached without our input that will have a real effect on us. The Paris Accord doesn't qualify.)
Trump's justifications for leaving the accord are, naturally, a jumbled and inconsistent mess. He says that this was a bad deal for the U.S. and that it would hurt our economy. But he also, earlier, said the deal was pointless. He was right the first time. (Here's another hint: When major industries are all in favor of a climate change agreement, you can bet that the agreement won't have any practical effect and that the industries just want to look good.) The actual point of leaving is symbolic. It plays well to the base, and it drives liberals absolutely insane, which also plays well to the base.
Finally, it's important to realize that the U.S. was never really "in" the agreement. This was not a senate-ratified treaty; it was just an "executive agreement." The legal status of such agreements is still somewhat murky, but one thing is crystal clear: The president cannot go beyond his constitutional powers in implementing such an agreement, so he needs Congress to enact legislation. Which obviously makes sense. It would be a crazy system if the president could just "agree" with a foreign power to do something domestically, and thereby bypass the entire constitution.
Agree with 800 Dude. It's not really a treaty.
The Green Climate Fund is why so many nations support it. It projects to raise $10 billion ($3 billion from the US) to divvy up to 3rd developing nation kleptocrats. Most of that money will never see any real climate use. Obama gave $1 to it already... $500 million THREE DAYS before leaving office.
The laughable thing is that the #1 CO2 emitter in the world -- China -- gets a pass until 2030 to do anything it wants! Even a 4th-Grader could see the fallacy of this. Here's an analogy.
A teacher decides that her school is spending too much on desserts. Everyone in the school has to cut back on desserts except Fat Albert -- who eats 1/3 of all the desserts and is increasing his dessert consumption more than the rest of the students combined. Further, Fat Albert gets to eat all the dessert he wants until he graduates from college, 13 years later.
Even a 4th-Grader can figure out that this is not going to work.
Dennis T Reynolds wrote:
Thank God for California
I agree, they are exporting their jobs to my state.
http://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/california-wont-fall-into-the-sea-its-moving-to-texas-instead/800 dude wrote:
This was not a senate-ratified treaty; it was just an "executive agreement."
It was purposely designed so that Obama could enter the agreement without the Senate's consent. Iit was also purposely designed to be difficult to get out of. That part is pretty much the most "complex science" part of the whole thing. To top it off it opened up for additions in the future to further chain down Americans over their heads.
It's nothing but a scam to circumvent the Constitution.
Trump delivered wrote:
800 dude wrote:This was not a senate-ratified treaty; it was just an "executive agreement."
It was purposely designed so that Obama could enter the agreement without the Senate's consent. Iit was also purposely designed to be difficult to get out of. That part is pretty much the most "complex science" part of the whole thing. To top it off it opened up for additions in the future to further chain down Americans over their heads.
It's nothing but a scam to circumvent the Constitution.
I really dislike Trump, but for these two reasons alone I am against the US entering into this agreement. We are not governed by Kings, Obama circumvented the process. If he thought it was such a good deal for the US why didn't he go through the Senate like he is supposed to do?
If we re-enter the Paris agreement it needs to be vetted properly and voted on by the Senate like any treaty with a foreign power. (Whether that's with Obama, Trump, Bush, or Clinton... )
HeartLandValues wrote:
For me the sun shone a little brighter and the air feels crisp and clean today
If liberals are butt-hurt and upset then this must be a good thing.
This encapsulates the mindset of the Trump supporter.
They don't care if something is good for the people.
They don't necessarily even care if something is good for themselves.
What makes them feel happy is when those with opposing views are unhappy.
They are driven by spite and loathing.
china is transitioning to clean energy very fast though.
#MAGA! wrote:
Treaties should be approved by the Senate. That former socialist traitor of a POTUS tried to set the Constitution aside to please his globalist friends. Didn't work out well.
Thank you, Trump!
If you understood anything at all about our system of government and the treaty you'd know how uninformed your statements are.
The decision itself is a reflection of the man, willfully uninformed, unreasonable, impulsive, child-like.
L L wrote:
HeartLandValues wrote:For me the sun shone a little brighter and the air feels crisp and clean today
If liberals are butt-hurt and upset then this must be a good thing.
This encapsulates the mindset of the Trump supporter.
They don't care if something is good for the people.
They don't necessarily even care if something is good for themselves.
What makes them feel happy is when those with opposing views are unhappy.
They are driven by spite and loathing.
Trump has an incredible ability to attract men who are easily influenced by other men who wear make-up.
It's been incredible to watch Trumpkins cry that Hillary is still talking, as if Trump would have gracefully cowered out of public sight if he lost.
One positive is we can get that top tax bracket down pretty seamlessly as long as Trump can keep these "men" overly emotional through September.
yeah
they have temporarily stopped the chemtrailing for aday or two
but when start again will be back to unnatural looking mass of clouds
blocking sun and depressing all under them
they feed of all that negative energy , dont ya know.
so keep it positive and dont feed that beast
renewed marathoner wrote:
china is transitioning to clean energy very fast though.
They'll say Fake News. Duuuhhhh.
What's more it's not a treaty to begin with, and not binding either.
Dumb move and those that support it are dumb dumb dumb.
renewed marathoner wrote:
china is transitioning to clean energy very fast though.
Been to Shanghai lately?
green energy wrote:
pop_pop_v2.2.1 wrote:Hahaha! Yeah, sure. All that money they make working away in relative anonymity on a topic with no prospects of being profitable on its own. Last flight I was on first class was loaded with environmental scientists.
The amounts don't matter. The principle does.
Hahaha. You agree with me that money has nothing to do with it. Instead you now claim it's a principles argument.
So, you are going to deny there is any validity to the scientific process? They are making stuff up and may as well work for the Heritage Foundation or Flat Earth Society.
Except, that scientific process you invalidate is responsible for pretty much every convenience, improvement in human longevity, communication, medicine, weather forecasts, agricultural production we have.
Now what?
Not all problems are solved overnight. Pay attention.China was given more latitude because if not the world economy would tank.Complex issues at hand - too complex for the Orange Sphincter.
traveler wrote:
renewed marathoner wrote:china is transitioning to clean energy very fast though.
Been to Shanghai lately?
BlahBlahBlah2.0 wrote:
Not all problems are solved overnight. Pay attention.
China was given more latitude because if not the world economy would tank.
Complex issues at hand - too complex for the Orange Sphincter.
Wow, what a flawlessly reasoned argument.
No wonder Trump won.
And with idiots like this in opposition, he is likely to keep winning. God help us all.
Run much? wrote:
...
I've done a lot of running in coal-fired China where sometimes the visibility is a brown hazed quarter mile, and then spent the rest of the day coughing up brown gunk. Yeah, "let's make America's air brown again."
...
You just gave us one of the best reasons to pull out of the Paris agreement. You are saying that China is a huge polluter, and that the US is much better in comparison, but the Paris agreement didn't put any real restrictions on China's pollution while it would hammer the US even though we're already much cleaner.
The Paris Accord wasn't about cleaning up the environment so the environment wouldn't have changed one bit either way.
You nailed it. The site owners are very far right-wing wack jobs, but let the circle jerk of alt-right posters do their dirty work for them. Also, Geor.ge Mall.ey is a moderator here, and he is also a far right wing wack job who clears out reasonable left wing posts and lets the far right wing posts stand. Most runners are cool but this site is full of racists, sexists and pickle-brained Nazi alt right crazies and the site owners love it. Most of the alt right posters on here went to religious colleges in the south so they are fake Christians to boot.
pop_pop!_v2.2.1 wrote:
green energy wrote:The amounts don't matter. The principle does.
Hahaha. You agree with me that money has nothing to do with it. Instead you now claim it's a principles argument.
So, you are going to deny there is any validity to the scientific process? They are making stuff up and may as well work for the Heritage Foundation or Flat Earth Society.
Except, that scientific process you invalidate is responsible for pretty much every convenience, improvement in human longevity, communication, medicine, weather forecasts, agricultural production we have.
Now what?
Hahaha. (BTW, are in grade school?)
I do not agree that money has nothing to do with "it". And I continue to claim that principles count. Perhaps you don’t.
I respect the scientific process over all other processes because it is generally self-correcting. But I am not blind to the influence of money on the legitimacy of some scientific research.
Your point seemed to be that because scientists are not getting rich from grant money, that money will have zero influence on their research. That is a fatally false premise.
800 dude wrote:
The real purpose of the accord is to allow world leaders to score political points by showing that they care about climate change, without actually doing anything.
In a nutshell, that's pretty much it.
As useless as the Paris treaty really is, would it make a psychological difference to the overall tone of the climate discussions had the US stayed in? Perhaps.
But in practical terms, nothing will really change. The US will continue to meet the Paris treaty emissions standards anyway. Technology and the increased preference for natural gas will ensure that carbon emissions will continue to decrease. So no real harm done. No need to get hysterical.