Paris Climate Accord Goes Home DEVASTATED!!!!!!!

at the end of the day wrote:

The US will continue to meet the Paris treaty emissions standards anyway.

The US commitment includes a plan to get the emissions reduction and it is in large part via the EPA requirements that Trump and Pruitt are rolling back. If they are successful (there are mandatory review processes that will slow this down) then the US is not likely to meet its commitments as currently stated.

The national commitments are non-binding as many have noted above and in that sense any country can fail to meet their commitment. A binding agreement would have been politically impossible. With that exception, it is not accurate to say that "China can do anything it wants for the next 13 years."

Mr Millenial wrote:

Trump supporters are so incredibly stupid. I was talking about this agreement over Memorial Day weekend with a few of them and it was clear they had no idea what the treaty does, who else is in it, what is required, what the longterm timeline projection is, etc. Yet they just knew they were supposed to be against it. (Even the oil companies are in favor of it!)

This has been true of every conversation I've had with Trumpists. Now, when someone says they voted Trump, I know they're a white guy who went to community college and is pissed off he wasn't smart enough to make it in the real world... so now he blames everyone else.

Haha, and every dude that voted for Hillary is either gay or transgender.

trackboat wrote:

at the end of the day wrote:

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.

Yes but it also means we aren't pledged to help fund developing countries' fledgling efforts at reducing emissions; countries that are rapidly expanding in population and carbon footprint.

Fortunately, Michael Bloomberg is taking care of that. So no worries.

Citizen Runner wrote:

at the end of the day wrote:

The US will continue to meet the Paris treaty emissions standards anyway.

The US commitment includes a plan to get the emissions reduction and it is in large part via the EPA requirements that Trump and Pruitt are rolling back. If they are successful (there are mandatory review processes that will slow this down) then the US is not likely to meet its commitments as currently stated.

But if the Paris treaty national commitments have always been non-binding, as you note, then Trump and Pruitt would have been able to roll back the EPA requirements anyway, regardless of what was agreed to in Paris. Since there are no penalties for breaching the Paris treaty, there would have been no real impact on domestic emissions policies.

It is truly difficult to comprehend the amount of shlt Donald J Trump is full of. He continuously shoves more BS than I've ever seen outside of a totalitarian nation.

Trumpers, really? Really? You want to defend this piece of garbage as he tears apart the truth? Do you have any shame at all?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/powerpost/paloma/the-energy-202/2017/06/02/the-energy-202-trump-s-paris-speech-needs-a-serious-fact-check/59302a21e9b69b2fb981dc14/?hpid=hp_hp-top-table-main_energy202-920a%3Ahomepage%2Fstory&utm_term=.99a06b63baa3

[quote]eric a blair wrote:

It is truly difficult to comprehend the amount of shlt Donald J Trump is full of. He continuously shoves more BS than I've ever seen outside of a totalitarian nation.

Trumpers, really? Really? You want to defend this piece of garbage as he tears apart the truth? Do you have any shame at all?/quote]

Who is defending anything? Some of us are trying to explain the real impact of this decision to the simpler folk like you.

at the end of the day wrote:

But if the Paris treaty national commitments have always been non-binding, as you note, then Trump and Pruitt would have been able to roll back the EPA requirements anyway, regardless of what was agreed to in Paris. Since there are no penalties for breaching the Paris treaty, there would have been no real impact on domestic emissions policies.

There will be hearings and almost certainly legal proceedings before the "Clean Power Plan" regulations can be rescinded. Scott Pruitt has argued that the US being party to the Paris Accord is a potential impediment to those inevitable cases. I've no particular expertise to judge the merit of that argument, but it's my understanding that's likely what swayed Trump over the advice of other cabinet members (notably Rex Tillerson) to stay in Paris regardless of domestic environmental policies.

at the end of the day wrote:

trackboat wrote:

Yes but it also means we aren't pledged to help fund developing countries' fledgling efforts at reducing emissions; countries that are rapidly expanding in population and carbon footprint.

Fortunately, Michael Bloomberg is taking care of that. So no worries.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/06/02/washington-cant-stop-americans-michael-bloomberg-pledges-pay/

Holy Cow. A rich democrat spending his OWN money for a cause he believes in. That's not something you see everyday.

Will he also pay the $ 3 trillion that Obama promised that America would pay until 2030?

Wow - that's quite a whopper.

I'll break this down for you Obama worshipping fools in the simplest terms possible.

Your core beliefs and religion are redistribution of successful people's wealth and the undying worship of all things climate change. You feel overwhelming shame and guilt for being an American (just like Obama does) so you will support any type of policy that devalues us and boosts up the rest of the world. Giving away American wealth and putting restrictions on our businesses in order to move the competitive balance more in the favor of other countries is your dream and ultimate goal. You want to see Americans become poorer in the hopes that it'll somehow coincide with the rest of the world becoming more wealthy.

Therefore you support the global elite (Obama, Merkel, all the fools in Brussels) and any type of financial schemes that restrict our economic activity and hurt our economy. Any loss to the US is a gain in your eyes because it absolves you of some of that shame and guilt you feel as an American. The Paris deal is a perfect opportunity to do this. It takes the largest financial commitment from us, puts no restrictions on those poorer 3rd world countries (that you think are only poor because of us), and gives them more of our wealth and opportunity to eventually overtake us. Americans that want to see us become a 2nd rate economy like most of Western Europe has become in the last 50 years are absolute scum.

POD

Most of the 190+ who signed are promised $100b/year and subsidies (free "green" tech), etc. It's a good deal for them of course.

Let's be clear, this has nothing to do with you. The people who would pay for this are elites, not the forgotten man. Elites on the left were willing to pay. Elites on the right weren't (although some came around more recently).

Elites on the left had a lot of support from people who support the cause. Elites on the right, looking out for their wealth, could not get votes based on their actual motivation. So they bundled the cause with emotional issues (Obama hates America so he's fabricating a hoax, he's trying to destroy America, etc).

To their credit, elites on the right have done a masterful job. All I hear the forgotten man talking about are emotional issues that don't tangibly impact them. While they're on an emotional bender, the elites on the right are planning a tax cut that will accrue exclusively to the elites while cutting benefits for the forgotten man. It sounds like a scam, but completely within the bounds of capitalism.

Rich people on the right are EVIL. Rich people on the left are SAINTS.

you got that right, bro wrote:

Rich people on the right are EVIL. Rich people on the left are SAINTS.

That's not what I said at all. The emotional words you used in caps are extremes adjectives, and there is no such thing as good and evil. Those are opinions. But it's pretty well documented that the elites on the right who claimed Obama hates America were solely focused on their wealth, but could no longer attract enough votes on that platform and had to turn to emotion.

W Bush used to campaign explicitly on tax cuts for the rich. But after the financial crises, the folks aren't buying it. So there has been a concerted effort to focus on social issues, and demonizing those who have different views as unpatriotic and trying to destroy America. Again, it's worked pretty well, and in our society it's not up to elites to looks out for the vulnerable, so I'm not placing blame on anyone, rather making an observation.

Hillary takes climate change so seriously, she didn't want to be on same plane as Michelle O going to Betty Ford's funeral (both had government-paid of course).

http://www.judicialwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/JW-v-State-Huma-production-17-00684-pg-51.pdf

So what I've learned is that those (LRC and others) who support Paris have generally no idea what's in it, but rely on platitudes and whimsical thinking, while those who are against it can at least give specific reasons why not (if I don't agree with them) from the actual document (not just scare tactics), in contradistinction to what is alleged against them. Is it any wonder that Scott Adams thinks the "climate" side of the debate is losing based upon inability to communicate?

And basically: the US can only show leadership by following the 190+ others?!