Trump: U.S. to withdraw from Paris climate pact, calls it 'unfair' for America

[Reynolds]

What trade retaliation? How will we retaliate?

What will we do when they refuse us a seat at the table in future negotiations?

The EU has already said, "No, we are not going to negotiate a new accord."


EU Leaders tell Trump: No Paris Deal Renegotiation

I have answered that. Either you are not listening or not comprehending.

 

[Gold Dragon]

To sign a treaty which signs over our rights as a sovereign nation cannot be allowed. It's against our Constitution as well as against common sense. (Which ain't too common these days.)

Would you care to show which rights as a sovereign nation were signed over in the Paris deal?

 

[Revmitchell]

If Trump really cared about jobs for Americans he would be investing in clean energy.

Here you are guilty of the false dichotomy fallacy and the begging the question fallacy.

Even if he doesn't believe in climate change it doesn't take a lot to recognize that the rest of the world and most cities in the US do.

This is simply not true. Most of the green energy companies have already gone under in the US in spite of the fact that our government propped them up for a time with millions of dollars. Those Americans that do support it are largely uneducated at the difficulties related to it. Personally I would love to have wind or solar power my house but the cost of doing that coupled with the very little energy it would actually put out makes it not very realistic.

There is going to be and already is huge demand for clean energy technologies and infrastructure.

That business is already going elsewhere and the US will be playing catchup for many decades while others countries take advantage of the global shift.

Again far to many of those companies in the US have gone under even after receiving large federal grants.

As for cancelling the deal itself, it has no real benefit for the US since the targets are purely voluntary and non enforceable anyway had the the US remained in the deal and just decided not to meet the targets.

The deal was bad for the US as it funneled millions of dollars out of the US every year to pay for others development. Let them pay for their own development. It imposed great reductions on the US and would kill our clean coal plants as well as a couple of other industries while no other single country would be doing the same. This would run energy costs up to unreasonable levels and make us uncompetative in the world.

Further it was a framework for global governance and as we say down south here "we aint gonna do that."

 

[Revmitchell]

Your insult betrays the fact you have no argument

Uh you made no argument. You simply threw out a caustic and unfounded claim. My response was equal in nature to your statement and there was no insult involved. Maybe you should hold yourself to the same standard you are claiming I should have.

 

[Gold Dragon]

Even if he doesn't believe in climate change it doesn't take a lot to recognize that the rest of the world and most cities in the US do.

This is simply not true.

The rest of the world and most US cities do believe in climate change. Do you deny this?

Most of the green energy companies have already gone under in the US in spite of the fact that our government propped them up for a time with millions of dollars. Those Americans that do support it are largely uneducated at the difficulties related to it. Personally I would love to have wind or solar power my house but the cost of doing that coupled with the very little energy it would actually put out makes it not very realistic.

R&D is expensive. But when there is demand and political will like there is in every part of the world except for pockets of the US, the market will bring the price down and in fact already has.

Financial Times: Coal is dead; Long live the sun (subscription needed)

That is precisely why coal no longer works: it is simply not competitive any more. Solar and wind energy are already the same price or cheaper than new fossil fuel capacity in more than 30 countries, even without subsidies. Every few months a new auction sets the record for the cheapest solar plant ever.

But instead of embracing market driven economics, some want to use protectionist policies to prop up a dying fossil fuel industry that is increasingly automated and hiring few workers but lining the pockets of very wealthy CEOs that have way too much influence in politics.

 

[InTheLight]

The Paris Agreement (NOT a treaty) is just another leftist "I've got good intentions" feel good initiative that really does nothing because:

a.) the goals for reducing carbon emissions are defined by each nation for themselves.
b.) there is no enforcement mechanism.

So, Country A can say they have a goal of reducing their carbon footprint by 'X' amount by the year 2035 and then go their merry way.

It is kind of entertaining to see so many on the left have conniption fits over this when it's really nothing more than a vague promise to do something with no penalties for non-compliance.

One thing that isn't mentioned very much is the $100 billion fund that is supposed to be established by the richest countries that are the worst carbon producers. The money is to be donated to developing countries to help them clean up their environment and reduce their carbon emissions. I suspect the United States avoiding this worldwide entitlement program is the best reason to get out of the agreement, since we would be expected to bear the biggest burden.

 

[InTheLight]

One thing that isn't mentioned very much is the $100 billion fund that is supposed to be established by the richest countries that are the worst carbon producers. The money is to be donated to developing countries to help them clean up their environment and reduce their carbon emissions. I suspect the United States avoiding this worldwide entitlement program is the best reason to get out of the agreement, since we would be expected to bear the biggest burden.

I just looked this up and I was wrong (kind of.) It's not $100 billion, it's $100 billion by 2020 and then $100 BILLION PER YEAR until at least 2025, so $600 billion through 2025. So by pulling out, Trump is avoiding the US being on the hook for a couple hundred billion dollars. That's putting America first, saving taxpayers money. I appreciate that.

 

[Happy]

Purpose to convene and effect an accordance. (effected via World Countries participation in... the Paris Accord)

Purpose? Announce a perceived detriment to the World's "Safety" VIA weather and climate effects.

Basis for such perceived detriments;

Scientific studies show that if the world’s carbon emissions continue unchecked, atmospheric temperatures will continue to rise. The planet won’t just be hotter, but it will also suffer from rising sea levels, more powerful storms, droughts that lead to food shortages and other extreme conditions.

"Paris Accord" is an "agreement" "WITHIN" the framework of the "UNITED NATIONS" !

THAT alone should give a FREE and INDEPENDENT Nation and her FREE citizens "pause" to jump on board!

Your government (joining up/partnering with another government (ie United Nations)) and subjecting you, as a citizen TO the United Nations "Laws", was not an Intent of the founding fathers.

Yes, your government has the authority to make Treaties and Agreements with other countries......BUT NOT when the Treaty itself supersedes the confines and limits of the US Constitutions.

Scripture clearly reveals God controls the weather.
Scripture clearly reveals God is in control to heal ones land.

It is no secret, Some believe that ^ , and Some have no belief or faith in God.

It also is no secret, that citizens of the US have their OWN VOICE to address "pollution" safeguards, WITHOUT asking another government IF it is okay or satisfactory to them! Or having another government DICTATE LAWS "they MUST" agree to and abide by.

If an individual chooses to NEVER filter or freshen the stagnate air in their home.....that is their choice.
If an individual chooses to FILTER and freshen the stagnate air in their home..........that is their choice.

When a government DEMANDS an individual filter and freshen the stagnate air in their home....that is NOT a free person being dictated to.

When a government REQUIRES an individual to filter and freshen the stagnate air in their home....WITH ONLY FILTERS the government (or via agreement with foreign governments), APPROVES of.........that is NOT a free person being dictated to.

Small example, however, the scale of "dictation" is not limited to only "small" issues. The American "People" have no say to what the United Nations may dictate, revise, add to their "laws" "policies" "rules", which will require the American People to adhere to.

And under the design of the afforded rights of the American People, they, AS the governed, ARE guaranteed to have a say.

 

[Gold Dragon]

The Paris Agreement (NOT a treaty) is just another leftist "I've got good intentions" feel good initiative that really does nothing because:

a.) the goals for reducing carbon emissions are defined by each nation for themselves.
b.) there is no enforcement mechanism.

So, Country A can say they have a goal of reducing their carbon footprint by 'X' amount by the year 2035 and then go their merry way.

It is kind of entertaining to see so many on the left have conniption fits over this when it's really nothing more than a vague promise to do something with no penalties for non-compliance.

I agree with this. The US is completely sovereign in this deal as it sets its own levels and there is no enforcement so all you had to do was say "Oops we didn't make our targets. Better luck next 5 years."

One thing that isn't mentioned very much is the $100 billion fund that is supposed to be established by the richest countries that are the worst carbon producers. The money is to be donated to developing countries to help them clean up their environment and reduce their carbon emissions. I suspect the United States avoiding this worldwide entitlement program is the best reason to get out of the agreement, since we would be expected to bear the biggest burden.

Even this fund there is no way to enforce this and no set figures for how much any country contributes. All you had to say was "Money is tight this decade. Will try harder next decade". So getting out of this deal actually accomplishes nothing for the US they couldn't have already done in the deal. The only person it benefits is Trump in saying he was able to do something he promised. Give yourself a gold star!

 

[InTheLight]

I agree with this. The US is completely sovereign in this deal as it sets its own levels and there is no enforcement so all you had to do was say "Oops we didn't make our targets. Better luck next 5 years."



Even this fund there is no way to enforce this and no set figures for how much any country contributes. All you had to say was "Money is tight this decade. Will try harder next decade". So getting out of this deal actually accomplishes nothing for the US they couldn't have already done in the deal. The only person it benefits is Trump in saying he was able to do something he promised. Give yourself a gold star!

If it doesn't really do anything, if compliance is voluntary, if you can get out of the financial obligations, why is the left so distraught? If it doesn't do anything why be in the agreement?

 

[Gold Dragon]

If it doesn't really do anything, if compliance is voluntary, if you can get out of the financial obligations, why is the left so distraught? If it doesn't do anything why be in the agreement?

Being in the agreement shows the world that the US is a world leader in an initiative the world agrees is worth pursuing because of the benefits it gives to everyone.

Leaving the agreement show the world that the US lacks foresight and leadership, sadly because of powerful corporate lobby groups that benefit the pocket books of a few folks that are already filthy rich.

 

[Revmitchell]

The rest of the world and most US cities do believe in climate change. Do you deny this?

Yes I live here



R&D is expensive. But when there is demand and political will like there is in every part of the world except for pockets of the US, the market will bring the price down and in fact already has.

Financial Times: Coal is dead; Long live the sun (subscription needed)


But instead of embracing market driven economics, some want to use protectionist policies to prop up a dying fossil fuel industry that is increasingly automated and hiring few workers but lining the pockets of very wealthy CEOs that have way too much influence in politics.[/QUOTE]

The rest of the world and most US cities do believe in climate change. Do you deny this?



R&D is expensive. But when there is demand and political will like there is in every part of the world except for pockets of the US, the market will bring the price down and in fact already has.

Financial Times: Coal is dead; Long live the sun (subscription needed)


But instead of embracing market driven economics, some want to use protectionist policies to prop up a dying fossil fuel industry that is increasingly automated and hiring few workers but lining the pockets of very wealthy CEOs that have way too much influence in politics.

The price has not come down, and in spite of failed polls the US does not want the expense of green energy.

 

[righteousdude2]

How is this decision going to bring work to us?

Well, it will create jobs for those who want work. Granted, the entitled will continue to go through life with their hands out, and the "America owes me" chip on their shoulder.

 

[InTheLight]

Being in the agreement shows the world that the US is a world leader in an initiative the world agrees is worth pursuing because of the benefits it gives to everyone.

Leaving the agreement show the world that the US lacks foresight and leadership, sadly because of powerful corporate lobby groups that benefit the pocket books of a few folks that are already filthy rich.

The US is the world leader in environmental cleanup technology and green technology, alternative energies, etc. Staying in or leaving a flaccid agreement will not change this status. There's nothing to be gained here and potentially hundreds of billions of dollars to be lost.

Tired old class warfare argument noted.

 

[Gold Dragon]

The price has not come down, and in spite of failed polls the US does not want the expense of green energy.

The Financial Times article links to a Workd Economic Forum report published in December. No polls anywhere.

 

[righteousdude2]

Please elaborate as your comment on China does not say anything.

You may disagree with China's policies. I do. But they did not walk away from the table. Now they will have a bigger say in policy and we will not be at the table to moderate what is decided upon.

You're a big boy. Pull up your big boy parnts and tell me what China HAS DONE as a partner?

Who cares if they have a seat at the table? If the US wants back in, they'll be welcomed with open arms. Facts: I would say there are a few BILLION of them?!

 

[Revmitchell]

The Financial Times article links to a Workd Economic Forum report published in December. No polls anywhere.

I don't care. The only way to know what people want is to ask (poll) them. I live here. If the questions gets asked in the right way one can obtain the answer they want. When Americans get asked the question never includes the difficulties that go along with this.

By the way the coal industry in the US is not dead and in fact is being lifted back up to previous levels.

 

[Happy]

Trade deficit ring any bells with you?

Right!

"Not if our products do not meet their environmental standards. crabtownboy"

Meet their standards? Ha!

Lead ~ a well known leading hazard and pollutant.
Does the US have SOME laws regarding the hazards of lead? Yes.
Particularly some laws prohibited mfg of lead based paints for the public's use, almost 40 yrs ago.
And only 12 years ago did China agree to stop using lead based paints in children's toys, exported to the US.
Whoopie ... the US trading with China act, in-fluxing millions of products to be imported from China since 1971...
.....and TOYS from china....being colorfully painted with lead based paints for almost 30 years!

And what else is the public unaware of in "their" being subjected to TRADE with foreign nations?

Ever walk into a "dollar store"? It is jam packed with Chinese "imported" merchandise. If you don't notice the odor by walking through the doors, go find their aisle with textile goods. Pick up any textile item and smell them. They reek of an odor you SHOULD be wondering what it is. Toxic lead dyes in the fabric perhaps? Toxic formaldehyde (a human carcinogen) in the fabric perhaps? (which is already know facts clothes manufacturers do us formaldehyde in clothing and other textiles, and China uses up to 900 times more than the recommended "safe" limit.

And don't dismiss the drapes, the bedding, the mattresses, the furniture, linens, carpet, etc. that your skin (the largest organ in your body) comes in contact with.

"their standards".... lol

 

[Crabtownboy]

You're a big boy. Pull up your big boy parnts and tell me what China HAS DONE as a partner?

Not sure what you mean by partner.

But they have aggressively pursued the renewable fuel industry. In 2010 they began the program. We are leaving that growing market to them.

Three Reasons to Believe in China's Renewable Energy Boom
Three Reasons to Believe in China's Renewable Energy Boom

[quoate]Who cares if they have a seat at the table? If the US wants back in, they'll be welcomed with open arms. Facts: I would say there are a few BILLION of them?![/QUOTE]

Care to make a bet on that? They are loving Trump leaving the field to them and Europe. You seem to believe we can dictate to the world. We can't. Now they can make demands on us if we want to rejoin.

 

[Crabtownboy]

Well, it will create jobs for those who want work. Granted, the entitled will continue to go through life with their hands out, and the "America owes me" chip on their shoulder.

You didn't answer the question. How will this bring jobs back to America?