Archive 2017-2019 Political Thread

[Jacob]

Some days are good Trump, some days are bad Trump. Pulling the US out of the Paris Climate Accord today? Good Trump

 

[Matt]

Some days are good Trump, some days are bad Trump. Pulling the US out of the Paris Climate Accord today? Good Trump

It's a treaty and should have gone to the Senate for approval.

 

[gangstonc]

It's a treaty and should have gone to the Senate for approval.

As should pulling out of it.

 

[gangstonc]

Also, the only country standing with us in this is Syria. I think that says a lot.

 

[Jacob]

As should pulling out of it.

If it had gone through the senate originally, sure.

 

[Jacob]

Regardless of your thoughts on climate change, the Paris treaty was bad for Americans relative to the rest of the world and also did very little to nothing to actually combat climate change.

I've posted enough over the years that everybody here knows I'm a skeptic (or labelled a denier) when it comes to human caused global warming. But put that aside for a minute, and lets assume that all the predictions of 3-4°C rise by 2100 happen if we go full steam ahead with fossil fuels. If the Paris treaty was projected to reduce additional warming by say 50%, or 75%, what it was going to cost the US could be justified. But the Paris treaty was projected to only decrease additional warming by around 3-4%. I'm not sure any of the people I see howling over Trump backing out have any idea just how little the Paris treaty was going to do for global warming if the science is correct.

I know I know, it was more of a symbolic gesture than anything. Well personally, I'm not ok with a symbolic gesture that is going to cost Americans billions or trillions of dollars.

 

[Matt]

As should pulling out of it.

Not in this case because barry went outside the rules as usual. Therefore it was not necessary to get Congressional approval.

 

[Evan]

Regardless of your thoughts on climate change, the Paris treaty was bad for Americans relative to the rest of the world and also did very little to nothing to actually combat climate change.

I've posted enough over the years that everybody here knows I'm a skeptic (or labelled a denier) when it comes to human caused global warming. But put that aside for a minute, and lets assume that all the predictions of 3-4°C rise by 2100 happen if we go full steam ahead with fossil fuels. If the Paris treaty was projected to reduce additional warming by say 50%, or 75%, what it was going to cost the US could be justified. But the Paris treaty was projected to only decrease additional warming by around 3-4%. I'm not sure any of the people I see howling over Trump backing out have any idea just how little the Paris treaty was going to do for global warming if the science is correct.

I know I know, it was more of a symbolic gesture than anything. Well personally, I'm not ok with a symbolic gesture that is going to cost Americans billions or trillions of dollars.

I'm very confused by this post. The Paris agreement does reduce the additional warming by 50-75%. If your target of 3-4 degrees celsius is used as a contrast, that's what kind of reduction we'd see. The Paris goal is 1.5 degrees celsius of warming compared to the time immediately before the acceleration of industrial production and greenhouse gases.

A reduction from 3.0 degrees to 1.5 degrees is exactly 50%. If only a 2 celsius reduction was achieved from a 4 celsius scenario it would still be 50%. Can you get to 75%? If the 1.5 degree target or lower was met (both unlikely) from a 4 celsius rise you'd be close.

The 3-4% you are speaking of does not refer to the Paris agreement's overall reduction of warming. It refers to the net decrease of Paris compared to Copenhagen and Cancun which were previous rounds of climate negotiation.

I am very skeptical of climate modeling and its accuracy -- especially when trying to determine what impact humans have compared to other natural factors, but everyone agrees we do have some level of impact. It could be more or less than the current largely agreed upon projections.

With all that said, I didn't really love or hate Paris. I don't think it is quite as unfair as Trump and others have tried to make it out to be. After all, we have some of the oldest infrastructure out there because we invented or refined so many fossil fuel technologies. They have to be replaced no matter what. China has to reduce emissions simply because of the insane air pollution there irrespective of climate change. They have already been doing quite a bit. I have no idea why we'd want to leave green fuel development and technology to China and other countries? Because the demand is there and increasing. All over the world, I'm developing countries and developed alike, the people want to reduce emissions, and they believe in climate change. Whether climate change projections or current beliefs are correct, people want renewable power technology, lower emissions, more energy efficient electrical and mechanical devices, etc.

There is a multi-trillion dollar economic opportunity here to supply the world with the expertise, ability and creation of all the needed technologies. Nowhere else can compare to the USA in this area. Quite honestly, Silicon Valley or the Boston area ALONE are have more ability than all but a few Top 10 economies/countries.

No, I don't expect China or India to meet their targets. But the US can easily meets its target as we've been implementing standards and regulations since the 80s. We don't have nearly as far to go as Brazil, India, China, Russia, Eastern Europe, other parts of Asia, etc. We were on track to meet the prior agreement targets just by some of the things we've done over the past 20 years along with the improved automobile emission standards, increase in renewables, improvements in electrical and mechanical design efficiency, etc. Per capita emissions, a better measure, shows the US has been trending downward for some time because we are emitting less per person.

There is a reason why almost every single Fortune 500 company, including ExxonMobil and other oil companies, issued statements against withdrawal from Paris. There is a multi-trillion dollar economic opportunity, and the US was uniquely positioned to benefit just like we were for the Internet and Computers.

Most countries will either miss or exceed their target. Even the US could struggle with meeting its goal but show progress, and it wouldn't impact our ability to be a market leader as other countries will need emission reductions and energy infrastructure improvements no matter what.

But completely withdrawing? Our companies now have zero credibility. Do as we say not as we do as the contract goes to Siemens or a Chinese company. I wouldn't be surprised to see numerous countries restrict or ban US climate technology or products, or subsidize/tax/regulate to achieve such a restriction or ban. There will be serious repercussions, and it will come in the form of being locked out of one of the largest and growing economic segments over the next 50 years.

Top innovators will stay in the BRIC countries, Asia, and Europe. They won't come to US Universities or businesses as we won't be a respected authority or market leader in these multi-trillion dollar economic areas.

I think Trump has made one of the worst decisions a leader can make. He doesn't understand the treaty, he doesn't understand the economic opportunity that is now lost, and he doesn't understand how he is making us a global pariah and further undermining us economically.

With Trump, the Republican Party has moved from having a philosophy of trying to implement policies that lead to economic growth and each individual having an opportunity to become better off, to just giving the middle finger to Democrats whenever they can.

I simply do not understand why reasonable people are going along with the Trump farce, but then again... Treaty of Versailles made some people do crazy stuff too.

 

[Evan]

I think the Trump's are taking advantage of an opportunity to punch back. Remember, don't let a crisis go to waste. even if it's a small one.

Whatever happened to honor and integrity?

The idea that we should lie, cheat, and do whatever we want without principle or morality flies in the face of what Conservatives are supposed to stand for.

We might as well just start using suicide bombers like the other side if we are going to be just like them.

The Barron stuff was clearly fabricated. Why the hell didn't someone tell Trump it sounded so phony, or did he not care as usual?

 

[Evan]

He's only been in office four months.

And look where he just went. He had promised he was going to do it quickly (immediately). If you saw the news over the last two days then you'd see be has temporarily "ruled out" moving the embassy as Jared tries to rekindle the peace process. I'm sure Bibi is thrilled.

Push too hard and Bibi will be replaced with a REAL hardliner. But, hey, real shocker that Trump lied about moving the embassy. He's pathological. He lies about small stuff, big stuff, pointless stuff, important stuff, etc.

I've literally only met a few people before Trump that you could just count the lies and fabrications streaming out of their mouthes. He's a real beauty, that I can tell you.

 

[Jacob]

I'm very confused by this post. The Paris agreement does reduce the additional warming by 50-75%. If your target of 3-4 degrees celsius is used as a contrast, that's what kind of reduction we'd see. The Paris goal is 1.5 degrees celsius of warming compared to the time immediately before the acceleration of industrial production and greenhouse gases.

A reduction from 3.0 degrees to 1.5 degrees is exactly 50%. If only a 2 celsius reduction was achieved from a 4 celsius scenario it would still be 50%. Can you get to 75%? If the 1.5 degree target or lower was met (both unlikely) from a 4 celsius rise you'd be close.

The 3-4% you are speaking of does not refer to the Paris agreement's overall reduction of warming. It refers to the net decrease of Paris compared to Copenhagen and Cancun which were previous rounds of climate negotiation.

I am very skeptical of climate modeling and its accuracy -- especially when trying to determine what impact humans have compared to other natural factors, but everyone agrees we do have some level of impact. It could be more or less than the current largely agreed upon projections.

With all that said, I didn't really love or hate Paris. I don't think it is quite as unfair as Trump and others have tried to make it out to be. After all, we have some of the oldest infrastructure out there because we invented or refined so many fossil fuel technologies. They have to be replaced no matter what. China has to reduce emissions simply because of the insane air pollution there irrespective of climate change. They have already been doing quite a bit. I have no idea why we'd want to leave green fuel development and technology to China and other countries? Because the demand is there and increasing. All over the world, I'm developing countries and developed alike, the people want to reduce emissions, and they believe in climate change. Whether climate change projections or current beliefs are correct, people want renewable power technology, lower emissions, more energy efficient electrical and mechanical devices, etc.

There is a multi-trillion dollar economic opportunity here to supply the world with the expertise, ability and creation of all the needed technologies. Nowhere else can compare to the USA in this area. Quite honestly, Silicon Valley or the Boston area ALONE are have more ability than all but a few Top 10 economies/countries.

No, I don't expect China or India to meet their targets. But the US can easily meets its target as we've been implementing standards and regulations since the 80s. We don't have nearly as far to go as Brazil, India, China, Russia, Eastern Europe, other parts of Asia, etc. We were on track to meet the prior agreement targets just by some of the things we've done over the past 20 years along with the improved automobile emission standards, increase in renewables, improvements in electrical and mechanical design efficiency, etc. Per capita emissions, a better measure, shows the US has been trending downward for some time because we are emitting less per person.

There is a reason why almost every single Fortune 500 company, including ExxonMobil and other oil companies, issued statements against withdrawal from Paris. There is a multi-trillion dollar economic opportunity, and the US was uniquely positioned to benefit just like we were for the Internet and Computers.

Most countries will either miss or exceed their target. Even the US could struggle with meeting its goal but show progress, and it wouldn't impact our ability to be a market leader as other countries will need emission reductions and energy infrastructure improvements no matter what.

But completely withdrawing? Our companies now have zero credibility. Do as we say not as we do as the contract goes to Siemens or a Chinese company. I wouldn't be surprised to see numerous countries restrict or ban US climate technology or products, or subsidize/tax/regulate to achieve such a restriction or ban. There will be serious repercussions, and it will come in the form of being locked out of one of the largest and growing economic segments over the next 50 years.

Top innovators will stay in the BRIC countries, Asia, and Europe. They won't come to US Universities or businesses as we won't be a respected authority or market leader in these multi-trillion dollar economic areas.

I think Trump has made one of the worst decisions a leader can make. He doesn't understand the treaty, he doesn't understand the economic opportunity that is now lost, and he doesn't understand how he is making us a global pariah and further undermining us economically.

With Trump, the Republican Party has moved from having a philosophy of trying to implement policies that lead to economic growth and each individual having an opportunity to become better off, to just giving the middle finger to Democrats whenever they can.

I simply do not understand why reasonable people are going along with the Trump farce, but then again... Treaty of Versailles made some people do crazy stuff too.

No disrespect intended, I read the first two paragraphs and since I'm at work stopped and will respond to those now.

I'm not sure where you found your numbers, but what was agreed on in the Paris Accord would've barely made a dent in global temperatures. The stated goal may have been 1.5°C, but what was actually agreed upon doesn't come anywhere near keeping it that low.

I've seen that number range a bit depending on who you believe, but it illustrates how far Paris actually was from achieving any real goal.

 

[Jacob]

And I'm aware of the difference in additional warming and warming from pre-industrial levels, and the graph I posted above is from pre-industrial. I'll try to make a longer post this evening when I have more time.

 

[KoD]

Great post Evan. I've mentioned before that clean emission technologies and the green sector are going to become massive industries and the US should be at the forefront of it's advances to reap the best economic benefit. Our president is absolutely clueless and he's isolating us from the rest of the world.

 

[Matt]

Paris was nothing more than a giant redistribution of wealth. United States wealth. The whole environmental/AGW crowd is full of commies and hucksters such as Algore. Algore declared in 2006 that unless we take drastic measure on reducing greenhouse gasses, the world would reach a point of no return. Well, it is now eleven years later and we are still here and the alarmists are still alarming. AGW is the biggest hoax ever perpetrated in the history of mankind.

 

[gangstonc]

The evolution: Russia had nothing to do with it— Russophobia! > Seth Rich leaked the emails, no RU hacking! > RU hackers did it on their own.

 

[Matt]

The evolution: Russia had nothing to do with it— Russophobia! > Seth Rich leaked the emails, no RU hacking! > RU hackers did it on their own.

Tell me exactly how Russia changed the outcome of the election ? It is rumored that Seth Richards leaked DNC emails to Wikileaks. Has not been proven incorrect. I have no doubt that Russia was meddling in the DNC. They tried to with the RNC as well. But they heeded the warning from the FBI while the DNC did not.

 

[Matt]

OK, finally evidence of the campaign colluding with the Russians.


https://townhall.com/tipsheet/katie...wing-huma-abedin-hooking-up-russians-n2334900

 

[gangstonc]

Tell me exactly how Russia changed the outcome of the election ? It is rumored that Seth Richards leaked DNC emails to Wikileaks. Has not been proven incorrect. I have no doubt that Russia was meddling in the DNC. They tried to with the RNC as well. But they heeded the warning from the FBI while the DNC did not.

I don't know that Russia changed the outcome of the election. I'm not claiming they did. I was merely describing the story the current administration has given.

"Has not been proven incorrect." is a pretty standard line given by conspiracy theorists such as 9/11 truthers.

 

[ARCC]

Based on what I've read about the agreement is that it can be summed up as a feel good agreement that is not binding.

I'm curious on how backing out of a non-binding agreement that is nothing more than a pledge will put the US at the back of the green technology line. Things are going green regardless of spoken word by politicians as long as the money is there and the companies aren't penalized. From what I can see when the Republicans passed the landmark deal to cut a trillion dollars over ten years from the budget deficit did far more and it was a complete farce to me.

 

[ARCC]

Just shows how our media reacts. While the news is Trump, Trump and Trump, I was alerted on another forum by someone actually fighting here.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/201...es-islamic-state-linked-militants-go-rampage/