About Trumps withdrawl of the US from the Paris Climate Agreement

From the World Health Organization's Fact sheet - Ambient (outdoor) air quality and health

One must presume nobody suggested to Donald Dork that he reads the above fact sheet regarding the tight link between pollution and death-rates in a country.

From the MIT News, Study: Air pollution causes 200,000 early deaths each year in the U.S. - excerpt:

You have to be brainless to disregard the results from rigorous analysis over the period of time given (5 years).

 

And what did the paris accords do to stop air pollution?

 

Read the agreement...

 

So, you can't tell me.

 

And you can't read the Key Facts of the agreement ...

 

Obviously I can, but I am asking you who supports the Parris accords to show me where it will prevent air pollution.

 

I don't need to do so. They are explicit to anyone with the capacity to read and the brain to understand them.

What has happened is a major calamity to the US and for its people - all because Donald Dork made some stoopid promises to get elected and now feels obliged to honor them ..

 

Paris is spelled with one "r" as opposed to how you've spelled it.

 

Lol.... translation!!!. I hate Trump! How did Hillary ever lose... lol... Oh you guys. ..

 

MT:

 

Key facts, US builds green energy in other countries. India and China ignore deal for minimum of 13 years.

Did I miss anything?

 

She did not lose the popular-vote. She lost the vote in the Electoral College, because it does not reflect the popular-vote. It is an antiquated voting-convention made Constitutional in the very early part of our country's history.

Most Americans at that time did not know how to read 'n write, and some "educated people" in Congress thought the electorate could be manipulated by "rabble-rousers" in some states. So, the Electoral College was adopted to prevent this from happening. (In fact, what the southern states feared most was that the proportion accorded them in the Electoral College included the population-count of blacks; and that the blacks would be allowed to vote, which was anathema to south. The black-vote finally did occur as a result of the Civil War anyway.)

The south had wanted to keep a disproportional part of the Electoral Vote in order to muster support AGAINST the northern states, which it feared because most of the newly arrived Industrial Age was happening in the north and not the south of the US. For selling cotton at decent price, the south needed cheap black labor.

The Electoral College is a perfectly useless election-device and has contravened the popular-will of the electorate 5 times in the nation's history, twice since 2000. Al Gore's election was falsified in the same manner as Hillary's but with a lesser margin ...

 

The deal was signed with that agreement.

And so what? Pollution is so bad in China it could actually bring down a government.

Not to worry, the Chinese leaders are not as stoopid as is Donald Dork. It will take a bit longer, but they WILL clean up their act.

Unlike us Yanks ...

 

Why should we pay for infrastructure in other countries? In case you havent noticed, ours could use a little improvement also and 3 billion can go a long way.

How about this, we can take that 3 billion and put it in a research slush fund for green energy.

 

That $3B will melt away faster than any ice caps.

 

I would rather waste it here than send it to India.

 

Translation ! Boo Hoo.

 

The Paris Accord doesn't stop air pollution, it reduces air pollution, and arguably the Paris Accord doesn't reduce the air pollution enough but it's better to reduce it some as opposed to not reducing it at all.

It can also be noted that there's a second major contributor to man's negative impact on the atmosphere that's responsible for global warming. The destruction of nature's means of recycling atmospheric CO2 back into carbon and oxygen (e.g. the destruction of the rain forests that's natures most efficient means of recycling CO2).

 

And in what way does it reduce air pollution?

Actually, the oceans are the most efficient means of recycling CO2. Just say. 75% of the earth is covered in water where more plant life live.

 

The MIT study examined the accord and determined that by 2100 the projected rise in temperature would be reduced by 0.2°C. For basically billions of dollars spent by the US sending it to other countries for a 0.2°C reduction is pretty much insane. Of course this is based on unproven assumptions and models.

 

You are right in the above analysis.

But if Mother Nature is having some difficulty in fighting pollution it because her sole means of doing so are being reduced. So, it is not "naturally" her fault.

It would help if the government gave a huge-subsidy to buyers of electric-motor cars, and then states allowed them a reduction on their plates. But, Donald Dork has already busted-the-budget - so that aint gonna happin ...

 

The agreement does not commit the US to make any payments to any foreign country to reduce its pollution.

Can't imagine where you go that idea.

Green energy has improved by leaps and bounds. The cost of replacing carbon-based fuels by photovoltaic cells is not that expensive. Still, if you can convince Donald Dork that 54% of the US budget spent on the DoD is far-too-much, then why not.

We can't have everything and the DoD is too effing expensive ... !

 

wrong

I got it from WaPo, among other sources.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/worl...5bd0922c3db_story.html?utm_term=.7431614ceb65

Its actually still a lot more than an average middle class family can afford.

 

Where are people going to get the energy for these electric cars? Where will the rare earth metals for the batteries come from? And what will be used to mine these rare earth metals?