About Trumps withdrawl of the US from the Paris Climate Agreement

There is no way that the particulars of the Paris agreement will result in any significant global temperature reduction. And that's assuming that the member nations meet their commitments. And the irony of it is that global warming is net beneficial.

 

Insignificant outcome, significant political posturing. That is what the Paris accord is all about.

 

And alarmism generates votes although the public is increasingly paying attention to the 'men behind the curtain.'

 

Sez you, the world expert on Climate Change.

Right, beneficial. The polar cap is melting and if it continues will raise ocean levels and inundate seaboard lands. Lets hope Donald Dork's Miami property will be 5 meters under water.

Which is exactly the sort of lesson some dense people need to have ...

 

The ocean level has been rising at the same rate of ~ 3 mm per year for the last 170 years. That's ~ 1 foot per century. I think the globe's population will be able to handle that with the technology developed and wealth accumulated in the next centuries.

 

I'm talking about the will of the people, not the highly unfavorable partisan Republican Congress that existed during the Obama presidency. They were not subject to the will of the people, only the Oligarchs and Plutarchs who are pulling their strings.

 

Is that why the left as a whole now side with Exxon and big business?

 

Is that why the D's lost ~ 1000 governance seats in the last decade ??

 

Earth temperature history:


And when it can't, what will be your answer then ... ?

 

It can - 1 deg C warming in the 21st century is not a problem. 1 foot of sea rise in the 21st century is not a problem. Alarmism is an unjustified application of the precautionary principle similar to the ban on DDT which is responsible for ~ 30 million deaths from malaria.

 

Did we have a vote or something?

 

Because Exxon has seen the light and supported the Paris Agreement?

Sore loser ...

 

It is funny to see the left side with big oil and big business though.

 

Well then they might as well shoot themselves for being pretty useless. Man has adapted throughout history, what makes you think man cannot now? To much time in moms basement maybe?

 

Political Correctness hits BIG OIL. Laughable:

https://www.aei.org/publication/exxonmobil-endorses-paris-climate-agreement/

 

No....Congress never ratified it



.

 

I am really beginning to fear for the future of America.
Where are all these people coming from that seem to think they know better than scientists?
People are denying:
Global warming
Evolution
The age of the earth
I mean there have always been idiots, but it seems their numbers have risen, and they even seem proud of their ignorance.
Now we even have a significant minority who support an ignorant, obese, lying reality show host who has no morals and values only money, and attacks science, our intelligence agencies, our free press, and anyone who disagrees.
How do we get sanity back???

 

The Paris Agreement does not cover pollution. It is directed to the threat of a rise in global temperatures. (To believe in them, one must accept the notion that fossil-fuel pollution is causing the widespread increases of the earths overall temperature. Which is, yes, a logical hop, skip and a jump into the future.)

What should they have done since the accords were finally agreed upon this week? (With Uncle Sam sent of sulking to a corner of the room.) Arrest the seemingly eluctable rise in the earth's temperature.

What WILL the accords do? An objective was set, because without objectives countries can debate the nature of the accord's rules, which helps undermine any international agreement.

Excerpt from the "Paris Agrement":

*"Ouch!", for the Middle-east oil oligarchs since greenhouse gasses are thought the consequence of fossil-fuel combustion ...

 

Look, whatever weasel-words the various signatories use in pledging their future emissions figures, they don't need to stand by them, and know there's no way for any of the other signatories to check, which rather makes the whole thing a farce? The Donald knows this, and is not going to waste his time on it.

 

Congress (i.e. the Senate) had no requirement to ratify the Paris Accord because the Paris Accord is not a treaty. It's an agreement between heads of states that imposes no mandatory obligations upon any of the parties to the agreement.

We already have the laws on the books that support the regulations necessary to comply with the Paris Accord. No legislative action is required for the executive branch to implement provisions of the Paris Accord. The Clean Air Act alone provides the statutory authority for the EPA to limit the emissions from coal fired power plants. The only necessity is for the EPA to implement and enforce the regulations.

Funding for certain non-mandatory provisions of the accord would require Congressional authorization but most of the accord can be implemented without any specific government funding.

Sadly Trump has appointed Scott Pruitt, an opponent to environmental protection, to head the EPA and regulations necessary, based upon the statutory law, are not only unlikely but existing EPA regulations are being violated based upon Scott Pruitt's orders. Thankfully the court's are stepping in to require enforcement of the EPA regulations.

https://www.apnews.com/a30936561a79...urt-orders-EPA-to-proceed-with-emissions-rule

The Trump administration, with anti-environmentalist Scott Pruitt heading the EPA, is rolling back environmental regulations that protect the land, water, and air from toxic pollution.

America wasn't "great" when we had the Love Canal that was polluted by industrial waste.

America wasn't "great" when the paper companies used arsenic and discharged it into our rivers.

America wasn't "great" when people changed the oil on their cars and dumped the used motor oil down the storm drains and the oil spilled into the ocean.

America wasn't "great" when acid rain was destroying the East Coast, including the Appalachian Mountains, and the Northeast.

America wasn't great in "2014" when Duke Energy dumped 39,000 tons of toxic coal ash into the Dan River coating 70 miles of river bed with heavy metals and radioactive by-products of burning coal and then after a token clean-up of 5% of the spill and paying an insignificant fine simply walked away leaving the pollution in the river bed for the next 1,000 years.

America wasn't "great" when I grew up in the (Los Angeles) San Fernando Valley during the 1950's and 1960's when the air pollution was so bad that our eyes were stinging and we had a hard time breathing.

American is "great" today because of the extensive environmental regulations that prevent the pollution of the air, water, and land in the United States and it will be even "greater" tomorrow if we extend those protections. I'm not sure how anyone can support the rescinding of regulations that are designed to protect our environment that will allow the poisoning of the land, water, and air.

How can anyone argue that Americans will be better off if the ground water is poisoned and we'll die if we drink it? How can anyone argue that allowing the massive US discharge of CO2 that's causing global warming is going to make us better off when half of Florida will be underwater in 100 years? In 2012 Hurricane Sandy struck the East Coast of the United States and the storm surge caused over $70 billion in damage. Imagine that same storm but with the sea level 1 metre higher (currently projected for the year 2100) that will continue to rise for at least another 100 years even if all manmade CO2 was eliminated.

Continued global warming threatens the melting of the Antarctic ice caps.

https://www.skepticalscience.com/sea-level-rise-predictions.htm

While it's highly unlikely that all of the Antarctic ice sheets will melt even the thought of the sea level rising by roughly 230 feet is staggering. We need only remember that this would just be from the addition of water to the oceans and ignores the greater problem of the thermal expansion of the water that's already in the ocean and our oceans are heating up.

We don't make America great by ignoring science or by re-introducing pollution that was eliminated by previous environmental regulations. We make America great by paying attention to the science and by increasing the regulations to reduce pollution.

 

It only matters if the United States stands by it's commitments. The United States has produced more CO2 pollution that any other country and even today we have the highest per capita CO2 pollution of any large nations. What other countries do is if secondary importance because we, the United States, have a moral and national obligation to dramatically reduce our CO2 production regardless of what any other country might do.

We can't stop global warming alone but we can significantly reduce the CO2 emissions we're producing that are violating the rights of every other person on the planet.

Doing what's right just because it's right is never the wrong thing to do.
​

 

It only matter if all of them do, but they don't - that's the point I'm making. They all say they do, but don't need to prove it. It's gesture politicking writ large, nothing more.

 

At what cost?



.

 

What is the cost of the pollution? If the coal burning industry was required to clean the atmosphere of the CO2 and other pollutants (and CO2 is a pollutant if it exceeds nature's ability to recycle it back into a solid state) then how much would that cost?

The only reason coal energy is "inexpensive" is because of the extremely limited financial liability that the coal industry is required to pay. For example Duke Energy dumped 39,000 tons of coal ash into the Dan River in 2014. It coated the bottom of the Dan River for seventy miles with heavy metals (highly toxic) and radioactive waste that's left over from the burning of coal. In the end Duke Energy paid a fine of about $113 million (as I recall) provided $15 million to clean up the coal ash spill in the river. BUT Duke Energy only removed 5% of the coal ash in the river and only did that were it was very easy to do.

95% of the pollution remains that the Dan River, for a 70 mile stretch, the river will be contaminated with heavy metal and radioactive waste for hundred or thousands of years.

Every person that uses the Dan River along this 70 stretch of the river for the next 100, 200, 300 years and more has "standing" to file a lawsuit against Duke Energy because they're suffering personal harm because of the coal ash pollution but they can't file that lawsuit because the "law" protects Duke Energy from further financial liability.

So when we talk "costs" let's look at the liability costs that aren't being paid by the coal industry first.

We can also look at the "revenue" that will result from "green energy" that is one of the fastest growing manufacturing and service sector job creators in the world.

http://www.eesi.org/papers/view/fact-sheet-jobs-in-renewable-energy-and-energy-efficiency-2017

We could end all COAL related jobs from the mining to the coal fired power plants and it would only cost the US 160,119 jobs while green energy jobs, increasing at the 18% rate, will add over 600,000 jobs this year in the US alone.

The only cost is to not eliminate the pollution coal creates. Eliminating that pollution reaps huge financial benefits for the United States.

 

Once again I am asking at what cost?

I heard anywhere between 5~12 trillion dollars, you do know the world just got out of a recession right?

What does the AGW cult want to do throw it in a depression?

Let's look at little New Zealand for an example they won't be able to limit there C02 out put, the only way they can comply with the Paris Accord is to buy carbon credits at a tune of 14 billion dollars, kind of a lot of money for them..


http://www.newshub.co.nz/home/polit...-billion-to-meet-paris-agreement-targets.html

.