He did not argue that your post is a false accusation. You have no support for your ungodly politics and your ungodly and unjustified attack on the President so you resort to the false characterizations of those with whom you disagree.
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Trump Administration Stands Alone As the Rest of the G20 Pledges To Fight Climate Change
- Thread starter FollowTheWay
- Start date
He did not argue that your post is a false accusation. You have no support for your ungodly politics and your ungodly and unjustified attack on the President so you resort to the false characterizations of those with whom you disagree.
RighteousnessTemperance&
Well-Known Member
No, I’m not arguing to follow Trump. It’s actually the other way round. As far as I know, Trump doesn’t have anything to do with the climate change hoax. Trump just happens to be on the right side of resisting the madness. The ones you seem to trust so much politically have no intention of reducing whatever types of pollution are supposedly causing your climate change. Do you think they are working on reducing it? They are not. That is another part of the hoax. However, they are heavily involved in taxing the populace to supposedly fix the supposed problem. That is yet another part of the hoax. But it’s much worse than that.
The diesel pollution problem in Europe should have opened your eyes by now. They taxed heavily and went to nearly all diesel (diesel?!) to fix the supposed problem. Result? Surprise! It made the problem much worse. Now they are supposedly going to fix the problem yet again by returning to what they had. And of course heavily tax the people in the process. This is only one small part of how they work it. Believing them is not wise, not even close.
It's admitted now that switching to diesel fuel was a mistake but it was made in the 1990's, 20 years ago. Not as much was known then about Climate Change and it was not as politically significant.
The rise of diesel in Europe the impact on health and pollution
In a bid to reduce CO2 emissions in the 90s, Europe backed a major switch from petrol to diesel cars but the result was a rise in deadly air pollution
The rise of diesel in Europe: the impact on health and pollution
David Fisk, chief scientist and policy director in the department of environment and transport in the 1990s, told the Guardian that there had been “concern” in government when it was proposed that diesel be backed over petrol.
“The motor manufacturers made a démarche to the department of the environment, showing that a major switch to diesels would lead to a substantial drop in CO2 emissions,” Fisk said. He added that the air quality division in the then-Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Detr) saw there was a problem he said – that local air pollution would increase as a result – so a national system of air quality standards was created.
Former Greenpeace UK chief Stephen Tindale, who was working on air pollution in the department of the environment at the time, remembers a battle between environment and air pollution divisions.
“Air quality was just not on the political agenda in the late 1990s. In 1997, Labour’s policy was for a 20% cut in CO2 emissions by 2020. Tony Blair wasn’t obsessed with climate but he saw the political and soundbite advantage. The department of health was dozy, with Frank Dobson and then David Blunkett in charge.”
A senior civil servant, now retired, who worked in the department for transport but asked not to be named, said that cost-benefit studies of a switch to diesel were done by government but climate change was “the new kid on the block” and long-term projections of comparative technologies were not perfect.
But the mistake was recognized years ago and the direction was changed. All European countries backed the Paris Accord to reduce emissions. We didn't. Why?
Then what was the problem?
Answer your own question. What do you think the problem is?
from the article:
"The economics of coal means no one will stop the reduction in the amount of coal. We've done a bunch of things that we promised to do under that agreement that Trump said we're not going to do."
Yes, I believe that if we push towards the use of renewable resources that will go a long way towards reducing climate change effects. Why not make that an objective and go all the way? And why should the U.S. look like a backward country to the rest of the world?
RighteousnessTemperance&
Well-Known Member
The only reason the US would look like a backward country to anyone is because of the strong bias of both our MSM, heavily influenced by outside political and economic interests, and their own media, similarly influenced or else directly controlled by their own governments.
To the rest of the world, the US is actually a giant target of envy and unfair competition, and too many in the US have aided and abetted and are doing so now.
RighteousnessTemperance&
Well-Known Member
Ummm, because it’s obvious that they don’t know what they are doing (they do and they don’t), or really don’t care (they really don’t), or are more intent on gaining political power and economic advantage rather than aiming to take care of the environment (most emphatically they are much more intent on the former, but make great money pretending about the latter). So, make those “or's” “and's” for a clearer picture.
What don’t you understand about “just not on the political agenda”? Air quality has been a major issue since the 70's at least. Obviously, you accept their continual lies, deceits, and lame excuses. I don’t.