Trump says privately he will leave Paris climate agreement, and does!

[fskimospy]

I thought there was a fund this agreement creates that helps poorer countries with infrastructure\green upgrades or funds for damage mitigation due to the changing climate? That would require the tax payer foot the bill. How does that not fall under congressional jurisdiction?

My argument absolutely does not require a president consult congress on personal promises or items that fall under the executive branch. Unless those personal promises require funding. Is that not the case if the president needs funding he goes to congress?

Because Obama contributed discretionary funds that Congress had already appropriated to the State Department's Economic Support Fund that the president has broad discretion to use as he sees fit.

Again, 100% within the president's powers alone and no binding commitment for future donations. Congress had its say when it appropriated the funds to begin with, it has no say in how he uses them now.

Absolutely it would had made it harder or impossible for Obama to get it done. But it also would had allowed for input, negotiation, and something Trump couldn't throw away with a poorly thought out argument. The way I see it is we ended up at the same position. Except now we can be the scapegoat for the world. So I don't think it was better than nothing.

I think it was better than nothing because from my perspective being scapegoated by the world is a GOOD thing in that it will create further pressure for climate change action on the part of the US in the future.

 

[Genx87]

Because Obama contributed discretionary funds that Congress had already appropriated to the State Department's Economic Support Fund that the president has broad discretion to use as he sees fit.

Again, 100% within the president's powers alone and no binding commitment for future donations. Congress had its say when it appropriated the funds to begin with, it has no say in how he uses them now.

Ahh I didnt know he funded it that way.

I think it was better than nothing because from my perspective being scapegoated by the world is a GOOD thing in that it will create further pressure for climate change action on the part of the US in the future.

Meh I prefer we get it right the first time.

 

[fskimospy]

Ahh I didnt know he funded it that way.

Meh I prefer we get it right the first time.

I totally agree that it would have been better to get right the first time. That being said, do you honestly see any way literally ANY climate change agreement would have made it through the Senate though? I mean this was the weakest, most voluntary agreement you could possibly come up with and Republicans made its destruction one of their main priorities. You probably have somewhere around 33 Republicans who don't even accept that climate change is a real thing to be concerned about. I just don't see it as a possibility.

 

[BurnItDwn]

Just let me know how much of an effect the Paris Accords were going to have by 2050 and how much it would cost the United States. Bet you can't, but good luck trying to find an answer.

I am not a timelord. Dr Who is fiction. Sorry that I can not meet your impossible expectations of knowing precise details about the future with certainty.

 

[momeNt]

Not sure if this is true or not. But if every global warming believer switched to plant based protein you would more than double the emissions cut from the Paris accords in half the time required by the accords.

Stop asking for change and just do the change. Stand up and fight.

 

[[DHT]Osiris]

Not sure if this is true or not. But if every global warming believer switched to plant based protein you would more than double the emissions cut from the Paris accords in half the time required by the accords.

Stop asking for change and just do the change. Stand up and fight.

Probably true. World agriculture would need some time to ramp that up though or we'd end up with a food shortage crisis pretty quickly. There's lots of angles that are being approached to combat climate change, arguable too slowly but it is happening.

 

[Thebobo]

True story

 

[momeNt]

Probably true. World agriculture would need some time to ramp that up though or we'd end up with a food shortage crisis pretty quickly. There's lots of angles that are being approached to combat climate change, arguable too slowly but it is happening.

Could happen in America by next growing season. Loosen ethanol requirements for which the benefit pales in comparison to plant based protein, and that's more than enough land.

This is more a story of wanting somebody else to bear the burden of fixing the problem than wanting the problem actually fixed. You first mentality.

 

[fskimospy]

Could happen in America by next growing season. Loosen ethanol requirements for which the benefit pales in comparison to plant based protein, and that's more than enough land.

This is more a story of wanting somebody else to bear the burden of fixing the problem than wanting the problem actually fixed. You first mentality.

It's really the exact opposite of that. Climate change is a collective action problem in which individual action is meaningless. It's not 'you first', it's 'us together'.

The idea that 200 million people or whatever are going to individually come to the conclusion that they should go vegetarian is a fantasy. The story here is we need rational and realistic solutions, not attacking collective action problems by assuming they are something else.

 

[[DHT]Osiris]

Could happen in America by next growing season. Loosen ethanol requirements for which the benefit pales in comparison to plant based protein, and that's more than enough land.

This is more a story of wanting somebody else to bear the burden of fixing the problem than wanting the problem actually fixed. You first mentality.

It's really the exact opposite of that. Climate change is a collective action problem in which individual action is meaningless. It's not 'you first', it's 'us together'.

The idea that 200 million people or whatever are going to individually come to the conclusion that they should go vegetarian is a fantasy. The story here is we need rational and realistic solutions, not attacking collective action problems by assuming they are something else.

What he said, you can grassroots (pun!) some parts of 'fix the climate' but convincing 300m Americans to stop eating beef and chicken is not going to happen overnight. Convincing them to eat another tenth of a penny on the dollar to fund a massive solar subsidy? Much easier to swallow (another pun!). Free market is already moving in the direction of greater efficiency, greater focus on electrical power, and greater focus on non-carbon based electrical generation solutions. To me, the abandoning of the accord is more symbolic. It's stating that America doesn't want to participate in the global stage, that it would rather sit back and count ever-shrinking gold coins in its dragon cave, boasting to itself that it's still the best. Meanwhile the rest of the world will simply carry on without it.

 

[OutHouse]

lol its hilarious watching you liberal idiots crying in here that the sky is falling and the earth is doomed. lol you morons said the same thing when Bush pulled out of Kyoto and somehow the US reduced its global warming numbers by 20%. news flash for you hysterical lemmings. even with Trump pulling out of the Paris turd agreement, the US will continue to reduce its emissions and other nations like china and india will continue to destroy the earth. focus your rage on them.

 

[JSt0rm]

lol its hilarious watching you liberal idiots crying in here that the sky is falling and the earth is doomed. lol you morons said the same thing when Bush pulled out of Kyoto and somehow the US reduced its global warming numbers by 20%. news flash for you hysterical lemmings. even with Trump pulling out of the Paris turd agreement, the US will continue to reduce its emissions and other nations like china and india will continue to destroy the earth. focus your rage on them.

Tell us why the agreement was a turd. Specific points.

 

[Thebobo]

lol its hilarious --- liberal idiots --- crying -- the sky is falling --- the earth is doomed.--- you morons --- you hysterical lemmings. --

That's all I read in your post.

 

[feralkid]

lol its hilarious watching you liberal idiots crying in here that the sky is falling and the earth is doomed. lol you morons said the same thing when Bush pulled out of Kyoto and somehow the US reduced its global warming numbers by 20%. news flash for you hysterical lemmings. even with Trump pulling out of the Paris turd agreement, the US will continue to reduce its emissions and other nations like china and india will continue to destroy the earth. focus your rage on them.

U radicalized, bro?

 

[Sunburn74]

Not sure if this is true or not. But if every global warming believer switched to plant based protein you would more than double the emissions cut from the Paris accords in half the time required by the accords.

Stop asking for change and just do the change. Stand up and fight.

Something like that. Cows have a very large carbon footprint and the worldwide trade for beef is significantly contributing to rising temperatures. The methane cows produce in their farts is far more damaging to ozone that the co2 from cars. If everyone drastically cut down on the amount of beef they ate and this reduced the number of cows being farmed through market forces and switched to chicken and other proteins, it is believed that yes global warming would be well addressed.

 

[Sunburn74]

Personally I'm glad Trump pulled out. This issue won't galvanize Republicans to vote. It sure as hell will galvanize their opposition. The best thing Trump can do is piss people off without actually causing too much harm.

 

[MomentsofSanity]

Something like that. Cows have a very large carbon footprint and the worldwide trade for beef is significantly contributing to rising temperatures. The methane cows produce in their farts is far more damaging to ozone that the co2 from cars. If everyone drastically cut down on the amount of beef they ate and this reduced the number of cows being farmed through market forces and switched to chicken and other proteins, it is believed that yes global warming would be well addressed.

That is irrelevant. Cows are part of the natural cycle of CO2. They release back what they consume. There is no increase of already existing carbon. Cars take carbon that has been sequestered underground for millions of years and release it as atmospheric gases. That's the big difference.

 

[0roo0roo]

Called it!

Lol, next time read the entire section. They said they wouldn't investigate again because they would reach an identical conclusion of dishonesty.

I am literallly 0% surprised that after saying people should rationally interpret the evidence you ignore contrary evidence based on an inability to read sources and then declare the whole thing a liberal conspiracy.

You based your opinion on a YouTube video from a known liar. Does that seem smart?



The ACLU is not a scientific organization. Your inability to evaluate sources objectively is making you an incredibly easy mark for unprincipled people. If you need tips on how to evaluate sources better please reach out to me. I'm here to help.

You called nothing, you got blown on not having even read your own citation. The cowardly unscientific bodies corrupted by the left behaved like snakes, when caught not even being able to back their claims, they simple stamped their feet and declared they didn't have to reconsider their garbage assessment because "we already know we're right". Sorry that isn't how credible scientific bodies operate.

The fact that this is the consistent behavior we see from such types should spell it out that their claims are not as solid as you'd like them to be.

That fools are so easily led to spend vast quantities of money, 100+ trillion, aka your children's debt on such flimsy say so is a damning condemnation of the intellectual degeneration on the left.

Fact is none of you on this forum crying about this believe what you are saying. After all, your 1080's and i7's are run on the blood of the children of the 3rd world. Tell me how you are justifying your hobby when you are destroying the future of the world.

 

[feralkid]

That is irrelevant. Cows are part of the natural cycle of CO2. They release back what they consume. There is no increase of already existing carbon. Cars take carbon that has been sequestered underground for millions of years and release it as atmospheric gases. That's the big difference.

Bullshit. They recycle a lot of the carbon as methane, a much stronger greenhouse gas.


Cattle are most definitely not carbon neutral.

 

[[DHT]Osiris]

You called nothing, you got blown on not having even read your own citation. The cowardly unscientific bodies corrupted by the left behaved like snakes, when caught not even being able to back their claims, they simple stamped their feet and declared they didn't have to reconsider their garbage assessment because "we already know we're right". Sorry that isn't how credible scientific bodies operate.

The fact that this is the consistent behavior we see from such types should spell it out that their claims are not as solid as you'd like them to be.

That fools are so easily led to spend vast quantities of money, 100+ trillion, aka your children's debt on such flimsy say so is a damning condemnation of the intellectual degeneration on the left.

Snakes don't have feet.

Also, that guy's an idiot. His other youtube hits include such things as 'The Global Warming Hoax' and 'Why you should love fossil fuel'. Let's also not forget 'How Global Warming Saved the Planet' (so it's both a hoax and a savior, I bet he's Christian).

Know your sources.

 

[momeNt]

It's really the exact opposite of that. Climate change is a collective action problem in which individual action is meaningless. It's not 'you first', it's 'us together'.

The idea that 200 million people or whatever are going to individually come to the conclusion that they should go vegetarian is a fantasy. The story here is we need rational and realistic solutions, not attacking collective action problems by assuming they are something else.

No it's not.

70% of Americans believe in global warming based on the facts and evidence provided to them. But they are somehow incapable of reaching a similar conclusion on plant based protein? Explain the difference to me. 70% probably disagree with the removal of the Paris accords, but they would not do a vegetarian accord, how is that not wanting passive change and a basically "you first" mentality.

 

[vi edit]

No it's not.

70% of Americans believe in global warming based on the facts and evidence provided to them. But they are somehow incapable of reaching a similar conclusion on plant based protein? Explain the difference to me. 70% probably disagree with the removal of the Paris accords, but they would not do a vegetarian accord, how is that not wanting passive change and a basically "you first" mentality.

Instead of giving up juicy steaks how about more employers offer some sort of telecommute option as a more routine option? Reduce an office footprint, reduce needless emissions on the road and fossil fuel use getting there. Let me work from the house I already have to heat and cool, with the internet I'm already paying for and keep the roads and skies cleaner that way.

 

[Sunburn74]

That is irrelevant. Cows are part of the natural cycle of CO2. They release back what they consume. There is no increase of already existing carbon. Cars take carbon that has been sequestered underground for millions of years and release it as atmospheric gases. That's the big difference.

I think a lot of people would strongly disagree. To begin, methane is a much more potent greenhouse gas and the population of cows that exists is supra-normal, being present to feed an artificial and unnecessary global demand for beef. Furthermore we are actually clearing forests which can address co2 levels to turn it into gravel for farming. If you want to think about the amazon, most of the forest losses in the Amazon is not even for lumber: it's slash and burn techniques to create more land for cattle farming for Brazilian beef which is one of the largest contributors to GDP for that country. Finally, the co2 emissions associated with the transport of beef products worldwide is staggering.

 

[Sheik Yerbouti]

You called nothing, you got blown on not having even read your own citation. The cowardly unscientific bodies corrupted by the left behaved like snakes, when caught not even being able to back their claims, they simple stamped their feet and declared they didn't have to reconsider their garbage assessment because "we already know we're right". Sorry that isn't how credible scientific bodies operate.

The fact that this is the consistent behavior we see from such types should spell it out that their claims are not as solid as you'd like them to be.

That fools are so easily led to spend vast quantities of money, 100+ trillion, aka your children's debt on such flimsy say so is a damning condemnation of the intellectual degeneration on the left.

Fact is none of you on this forum crying about this believe what you are saying. After all, your 1080's and i7's are run on the blood of the children of the 3rd world. Tell me how you are justifying your hobby when you are destroying the future of the world.

seriously, seek help. you're mentally unbalanced if you believe any of that horseshit

Stefan Basil Molyneux (/stəˈfæn ˈmɒlᵻnjuː/; born September 24, 1966) is an Irish-born Canadian blogger/vlogger. Molyneux usually speaks on topics including right-libertarianism, politics, anti-feminism,[1] race and intelligence, and familial relationships. He is a self-published author and podcaster, and has spoken at libertarian conferences. The Freedomain Radio internet community which he leads has occasionally been described as a cult.[2][3][4][5]

 

[feralkid]

Socialism!