President Trump Announces Decision To Pull U.S. Out Of Paris Climate Treaty

How about you tell me.

 

Very simple. US set its own standards and goals, then worked to achieve them. This included clean coal, natural gas, and in the last few years, renewables.

We spent our money here on subsidies for green energy, not in India on theres.

 

Private Enterprise, that's how we got it!

Trump takes down one of Obama Authoritarian Measures, by ripping up the Paris Treaty, and now, he turns his steely gaze on "Net-Neutrality"

President Trump Preparing to Fight Net Neutrality

Thankfully, we finally have a president back in office who prioritizes the needs of the American people over the needs of other countries. We finally have a president who recognizes that free market economics are superior to socialist ideologies. We finally have a president who would prefer to let American businesses control the direction an industry takes, as opposed to government officials who are controlled by complicated webs of quid pro quos. We finally have a president who puts America first.

Just a few weeks ago, White House spokesman Sean Spicer spoke up and called net neutrality out for what it really is, a regulatory overreach, and described President Trump’s intentions to reverse the former administration’s regulations.

“The previous administration, in an attempt to treat internet service providers differently than edge providers, such as Google and Facebook, reclassified them as common carriers -- much like a hotel or another retail outlet -- and opened the door to an unfair regulatory framework,” Spicer told reporters. “Reversing net neutrality will allow all service providers to be treated fairly and consumer protection and privacy concerns to be reviewed on an equal playing field.”

The Case Against Net Neutrality

If you read news articles or listen to late night talk show hosts, you’ll be told that everyone is in support of net neutrality. After all, who could oppose free access without favor? Say anything negative about net neutrality and the left will call in the lynch mob and claim you support discrimination. But if you use logical thinking, something the Left views as a "Jewish Trick", it becomes clear that net neutrality is actually pretty terrible and discriminatory.

Why should President Trump take down net neutrality? Here are a few reasons:

1. Government Suddenly Has More Control

When has more government interference and control ever been a positive thing? Well, net neutrality ensures the government gets as much control as it wants, no questions asked. As entrepreneur Joshua Steimie has warned for years, net neutrality essentially gives the government the means needed to monitor broadband connections and even install its own hardware and software to monitor internet traffic. Once installed, who’s to say they won’t use that interference for other purposes?

2. The System Has Worked Just Fine

Net neutrality is a classic example of an instance where liberal policymakers want to interfere with something that’s working just fine. Trillions of dollars have been invested into the internet since its inception and virtually 100 percent of Americans have access to the internet. The vast majority -- close to 90 percent -- have connections that are faster than 100 Mbps. So the left’s argument that fast, affordable internet access is something that only the privileged have is a joke.

3. It’s Not Fair to Customers

Picture yourself in a restaurant. You and your friend are enjoying a nice night out on the town. You aren’t super hungry, so you just order a soup and salad off the appetizer menu. Your friend is really hungry and orders a 44-oz steak. When the waiter brings you both your checks, you both owe the same amount. You ask the waiter why and he tells you that’s just the way it is. After all, it wouldn’t be fair if you paid less than your friend.

The previous scenario might seem ridiculous, but that’s essentially what net neutrality will do. It doesn’t matter if you only use a certain amount of data and only want minimum speeds, you’re going to pay the exact same amount as someone who uses unlimited data at the highest possible speed. In a world where net neutrality prevails, this will be the norm. Charging everyone the same price is anything but fair, but Big Brother will try to convince you that it is.

What’s Next?

The Trump Administration still faces an uphill battle in taking down net neutrality, but he has the pieces in place to get the ball moving. It appears that he’ll prioritize this regulatory overreach in the coming months and return to the free market economics that have made this country so great for so many years. At least, that’s what we all hope.

http://www.americanthinker.com/arti...ity_trumps_next_big_target.html#ixzz4irGSseIO

 

The US is just incredible behind the percentage of clean energy Germany produces with windmills and solar energy.

 

Big ****ing deal.

Germany has no oil and cannot invade romania this time so windmills is their only choice no matter what the cost

 

they are out competing the US economically.

 

We also have much cheaper energy prices. Should we transfer to more expensive, less reliable energy?

We need to worry more about increasing the efficiency of our power use than we do with dumping huge sums into new power plants and emissions controls.

http://www.renewableenergyworld.com...illion-upgrade-needs-european-efficiency.html

That goes into pretty good detail about all the things that will help, most of them will help more than controls on power plants and cost significantly less.

As for the power plants, replace through attrition. By putting off new construction for another decade or so, we give the technologies more time to mature and come down in price.

 

They use 1/3 of what an American needs, so the Germans still just pay less.
Says a lot who is more advanced and out competing who with technology.

If they were forced like Germans, than you get to accomplish that.
But since the US left the Paris agreement....

 

You were doing so well until that last comment. The Paris agreement didnt force us to do anything either. We could have stayed in the agreement yesterday, then announced plans to build 10 more coal plants today and there would be no consequences.

So I ask again, what is stopping the US from doing the exact same thing we did with the Kyoto agreement? Dont join, but still follow the basic framework of it.

 

It forces the government to switch over to non C02 producing energy sources, while make consumers start using energy more efficient. As what the Germans have done. Did they lose jobs? Doesn't look like it.

You make it seem that America is just on par with Germany as in clean energy and efficiently using energy. It's just not the case.

 

It does no such thing. It was just a list of non binding goals each country laid out for itself. There are no consequences for simply ignoring the accord after joining it.

We are a much larger country, takes a lot longer to bring about major changes.

 

Neither the US or Germany under leftist rule the past 8 years have an acceptable growth rate.

 

That's right. And these redistributionists are hypocrites:

Who's Standing in the Way of the Economic Left's Dreams of Redistribution of Wealth...?
The Affluent Social Left, Which Doesn't Want to Share Their Money With the Riff-Raff

Shock.

Almost as shocking to find out that Man of the People Charles Schumer represents big banks' and Wall Street's interests as if he was getting huge donations from them. Which, oh yeah, he is.

Thomas Edsall, the longtime Washington Post reporter now writing on his New York Times blog, laments the increasing tendency of high-income Americans to vote Democrat. That leaves the Democrats with an increasingly affluent constituency, presumably unwilling (or less willing than others) to support redistributive policies like Bernie Sanders's proposal for higher tax rates on the affluent.

"In the past," Edsall writes, "Democrats could support progressive, redistributive policies knowing that the costs would fall largely on Republicans. That is no longer the case. Now supporting these policies requires the party to depend on the altruistic idealism of millions of supporters who, despite being relatively well off, often feel financially pressed themselves."

Michael Barone notes that Hillary only won the primary over Bernie by getting enormous victory margins in wealthy liberal counties.

 

That is because in the last 8 years, we had one financial crisis after the other, because of an totally out of control capitalistic system.

 

You mean because of stupid lefties in the white house who do not understand the private sector

 

I mean, because the credit crunch / mortgage crisis is a right wing responsibility.

 

It isn't/wasn't but that is another subject and quite off the topic here

 

There would never been a mortgage crisis if there was a heck of a lot more control of the banks bundeling mortgages and selling it around. Letting markets control themselves is a right wing capitalistic theme. And indeed... you brought in off topic issues.

And now... new right wing capitalistic issues are going to be just as horrible for the US as the credit crisis. It's all short term success that eventually will end and leaves the US hopelessly behind everybody else. Germany is already ahead of this. What the hell is the US waiting for? For China to be just as good as Germany? Good lord,.. the US is just so done for when that happens.

 

It was bleeding heart liberals who insisted banks loan money to unqualified people in the ghetto who were not good credit risks.

Yes the bad paper was bundles and sold to unsuspecting investers and it happened under liberal bill clinton and george bush who like to brag about how much minority home ownershi[p had increased while he was president

 

Donald Trump had the opportunity to participate in something major that could help save the world - and again like usual, he shows that he is more concerned with his own personal image as a "big man" than the health and safety of our country's future generations. Not much to be surprised about, just disappointed.

Right because some of the country's leading CEO's totally support an economic system which wants to redistribute their wealth.

 

That's uncontrolled right wing capitalism. Thank you for playing.

 

The world is in no danger from CO2

So subordinating our national sovereignty to a one-world government is worse than pointless