The true meaning of covfefe wrote:
US relations with Europe also go home DEVASTATED.
Europe fetishists go home DEVASTATED and can also GO FUCK THEMSELVES!
The true meaning of covfefe wrote:
US relations with Europe also go home DEVASTATED.
Europe fetishists go home DEVASTATED and can also GO FUCK THEMSELVES!
So.... German auto makers say that need to be competitive (i.e., get handouts) in order to successfully protect the climate. Logical?
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-climatechange-german-carmakers-idUSKBN18T1Q0"The regrettable announcement by the USA makes it inevitable that Europe must facilitate a cost efficient and economically feasible climate policy to remain internationally competitive," Matthias Wissmann, president of the German auto industry lobby group VDA, said in a statement on Friday.
"The preservation of our competitive position is the precondition for successful climate protection. This correlation is often underestimated," Wissmann said, adding that the decision by the Unites States was disappointing.
The VDA said electricity and energy prices are already higher in Germany than in the United States, putting Germany at a disadvantage.
Market forces wrote:
If it's true (as Obama says) that business already chose this, and have done so for reasons other than oppressive taxes (cough-cough, coal), then who cares whether USA as a nation is in it or not?
Yes, this was Obama's point. He is saying that while American leadership is good for the world, that even if Trump tries to abdicate that role the underlying factors driving that leadership are still present. In other words, American citizens and companies are still committed to socially responsible policies (he argues), which means that while the symbolic aspects of this might be very damaging to US credibility and geopolitical reputation, the climate effects might actually not be that big (as I think Trump himself argued). This next part is my own speculation, but I think the reason Obama is emphasizing this is to reassure leaders of other countries that we really aren't betraying them that badly, in an attempt to reduce the damage that Obama thinks this announcement will do to America's global reputation and good standing with the rest of the world.
(Why is American leadership good for the world? First, because predictability in foreign policy helps make coordination between nations easier. This helps the world not get trapped in sub-optimal equilibria, like mutual defection in prisoner's dilemma scenarios. Wars are a good example of this - they often aren't in the rational interests of either party, but can still happen due to unpredictability. Second, because symbolically committing ourselves to good values like cooperation and generosity, Obama argues, inspires better behavior among other nations. In game theory terms, other nations are more likely to cooperate if they believe that we will cooperate, and more likely to defect if they believe that we will defect.)
The Trump effect continues! Somehow he made libs overnight (or even quicker) discover the concepts of subsidiarity and states' rights, to join a "climate action" pact if they see fit (while presumably allowing others the right to decide too). Too bad they didn't like these during the 2008-16 time frame.
DiscoGary wrote:
Now it's official. Very good for the US.
Yes USA is exempt from pollution and climate change just because idiots like you voted an idiot in power.
Anything for a buck (or two) wrote:
So.... German auto makers say that need to be competitive (i.e., get handouts) in order to successfully protect the climate. Logical?
"The regrettable announcement by the USA makes it inevitable that Europe must facilitate a cost efficient and economically feasible climate policy to remain internationally competitive," Matthias Wissmann, president of the German auto industry lobby group VDA, said in a statement on Friday.http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-climatechange-german-carmakers-idUSKBN18T1Q0"The preservation of our competitive position is the precondition for successful climate protection. This correlation is often underestimated," Wissmann said, adding that the decision by the Unites States was disappointing.
The VDA said electricity and energy prices are already higher in Germany than in the United States, putting Germany at a disadvantage.
The pigs are beginning to squeal.
Trump was probably too busy preparing for National Donut Day (June 2) to care.
pod spotter wrote:
different perspective wrote: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
No. You are a pud and this poster is an idiot.
Anything for a buck (or two) wrote:
So.... German auto makers say that need to be competitive (i.e., get handouts) in order to successfully protect the climate. Logical?
Trumps agenda is to ignore the external environmental costs of US energy production to gain a competitive advantage, thus German manufacturers are pointing out that US manufacturers would effectively subsidized and they're right. In much the same way, the US has rightly pointed out that Chinese manufacturing has been unburdened by environmental considerations in the recent past.
Citizen Runner wrote:
Anything for a buck (or two) wrote:So.... German auto makers say that need to be competitive (i.e., get handouts) in order to successfully protect the climate. Logical?
Trumps agenda is to ignore the external environmental costs of US energy production to gain a competitive advantage, thus German manufacturers are pointing out that US manufacturers would effectively subsidized and they're right. In much the same way, the US has rightly pointed out that Chinese manufacturing has been unburdened by environmental considerations in the recent past.
The Germans are perfectly free to relocate their manufacturing plants to the US. As we have relocated ours to China.
Citizen Runner wrote:
Anything for a buck (or two) wrote:So.... German auto makers say that need to be competitive (i.e., get handouts) in order to successfully protect the climate. Logical?
Trumps agenda is to ignore the external environmental costs of US energy production to gain a competitive advantage, thus German manufacturers are pointing out that US manufacturers would effectively subsidized and they're right. In much the same way, the US has rightly pointed out that Chinese manufacturing has been unburdened by environmental considerations in the recent past.
Forget climate. The Germans don't even pay their fair share of NATO obligations. They don't factor the cost of military protection. If the US abandons NATO Europe wont be able to afford anything at best, at worst they'll be invaded and conquered.
mileage_man wrote:
Market forces wrote:If it's true (as Obama says) that business already chose this, and have done so for reasons other than oppressive taxes (cough-cough, coal), then who cares whether USA as a nation is in it or not?
Yes, this was Obama's point. He is saying that while American leadership is good for the world, that even if Trump tries to abdicate that role the underlying factors driving that leadership are still present. In other words, American citizens and companies are still committed to socially responsible policies (he argues), which means that while the symbolic aspects of this might be very damaging to US credibility and geopolitical reputation, the climate effects might actually not be that big (as I think Trump himself argued). This next part is my own speculation, but I think the reason Obama is emphasizing this is to reassure leaders of other countries that we really aren't betraying them that badly, in an attempt to reduce the damage that Obama thinks this announcement will do to America's global reputation and good standing with the rest of the world.
(Why is American leadership good for the world? First, because predictability in foreign policy helps make coordination between nations easier. This helps the world not get trapped in sub-optimal equilibria, like mutual defection in prisoner's dilemma scenarios. Wars are a good example of this - they often aren't in the rational interests of either party, but can still happen due to unpredictability. Second, because symbolically committing ourselves to good values like cooperation and generosity, Obama argues, inspires better behavior among other nations. In game theory terms, other nations are more likely to cooperate if they believe that we will cooperate, and more likely to defect if they believe that we will defect.)
This is horsesh*t. He with the biggest guns rules.
I for 1 don't care about this crap 1 way or another by the time this becomes a problem I will be long dead so not my problem an no o don't care about what is left behind for future generations
itbaddude wrote:
Forget climate. The Germans don't even pay their fair share of NATO obligations. They don't factor the cost of military protection. If the US abandons NATO Europe wont be able to afford anything at best, at worst they'll be invaded and conquered.
LOL. I see you got your Britbart talking points memo today.
exthrower wrote:
NOTHING the US can do will improve the climate.....
Climate change is a "commons" problem. Commons problems inherently can not be addressed unilaterally by a single actor (country) without the cooperation of the other significant actors. This implies the necessity for international cooperation. Thus while your statement is trivially true, it does not follow that the problem is inherently unsolvable or that the problem does not exist.
India, China and Brazil are the problems...
Climate change due to greenhouse gas emissions is proportional to the cumulative emissions. Contributions to date are as shown which support the argument that the majority of emissions to date are attributable to developed countries.
http://www.wri.org/sites/default/files/uploads/historical_emissions.pngThis is simple extortion...The poor countries want billions of our money to institute controls....
The Intended Nationally Determined Contribution (INDC) statements state goals with and in some cases without international financing, that is, there is a baseline goal and a goal contingent on financial aid. China and Brazil's statements do not have such contingencies while India does. Contributions to the UNFCCC Green Climate Fund are voluntary and it wouldn't have caused much of a stir if Trump had simply chosen not to make contributions going forward. It would surprise most knowledgeable observers if the it were ever funded at the levels stated and a great deal of progress is possible without these funds.
For reference, here's a summary of the Paris INDCs with links to the actual statements:
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1LtaBOv70pvXVPDgLUGtTKnSxofjfZy7jx06bTSaMaH4/pubhtml?gid=14385633&single=trueitbaddude wrote:
mileage_man wrote:deleted horsesh*t
This is horsesh*t. He with the biggest guns rules.
No, no. Obama's leading from behind and his drawing of red lines was SO predictable and successful. Hey, he even got the Nobel Peace prize for that!
Go F yourself with your lying statistics. China burns 4 times more coal than the US and the Paris deal gave them a free pass to continue doing that for at least 13 years and with no obligations after.
Also on the topic of the UNFCCC Green Climate Fund, much of the contingencies are in the form of loans rather than grants. This is important because current carbon free technologies are capital intensive relative to fossil fuels. That is they have a relatively high purchase and installation cost while maintenance is relatively low and there are no fuel costs. Fossil fuel energy generation is characterized by lower deployment cost with the lifetime fuel cost dominating. Thus the availability of low interest loans enables installation of carbon free infrastructure in developing countries.
Citizen Runner wrote:
Anything for a buck (or two) wrote:So.... German auto makers say that need to be competitive (i.e., get handouts) in order to successfully protect the climate. Logical?
Trumps agenda is to ignore the external environmental costs of US energy production to gain a competitive advantage, thus German manufacturers are pointing out that US manufacturers would effectively subsidized and they're right. In much the same way, the US has rightly pointed out that Chinese manufacturing has been unburdened by environmental considerations in the recent past.
Germany's policy of reducing their carbon emissions has already led to Siemens moving its oil and gas business to Houston and BMW built their carbon fiber plant in Washington, because of ‘competitive energy costs.’ I believe BASF also chose the USA for their $billion propylene plant because the cost of energy in the USA is less than half that of (green) Germany.
In actual fact, the Paris Agreement is not worth the paper it’s written on; far from securing a reduction in global CO2 emissions, it’s fundamentally a blank cheque that allows so-called ‘emerging nations’ to increase their emissions as they see fit in pursuit of economic growth. So in areas of the world like Africa, Indonesia and India, they are full steam ahead utilising their vast coal reserves with hundreds of coal fired power plants being built or in the planning stages. Even advanced economies like Japan, they have also chosen coal as their main source of future energy requirements, having closed down all their nuclear plant after the Fukishima disaster.
And they have all hypocritically signed the Paris Agreement and are now knocking Donald Trump for putting vital American interests first and foremost.
I wish he was our PM are our British (green) energy policy is a disaster.
Germany and France are fvcked after Trump put America first. They think they have an alternative climate partner in China. LOL! It's like a kid joining a gang after his parents tell him to straighten up.
Good luck with your partnership with China, Europe! It will be as successful as your partnership with the Muslim world.
(Paywall:)
https://www.wsj.com/articles/eu-china-summit-ends-with-no-agreement-on-trade-1496418386
