Show of Hands

Other than hyperbole - what negative practical effect does this have on anything?

Oh maybe our standing in the world

So no practical effect just how others “feel” about us.
Lefties care about feelings, righties care about action.
That’s sums it up in a nutshell.

Who are we supposed to impress - the French with their racist war on hijab, the Brits who can’t even follow their own rules and election results, the Germans who are admitting what a mistake it was to allow unfettered migration, the Russians who used their spies to handle a British spy to interfere in our election, the Middle Eastern war mongering countries, China or India the lead polluters, Cuba or Venezuela the socialist paradises, Mexico who outsources it socioeconomic problems to the US, Canada where the black faced racist PM just got re-elected, Africa the home of the slave traders who sold their own race into slavery - just who are we supposed to impress?

those who said yes don't actually know that much about the agreement. Or they do and they just want to agree with whatever Trump does.

Parago - please explain how this effects the US in a negative manner.

If you think the deal was only "help save the climate", you did not look into it.

Trump couldn’t have said it better.

What negative effect does pulling out have on the US?

Okay loonies - how are we destroying the earth by pulling out of a non binding agreement while we continue to cut emissions, increase renewables and create new technology in the free market?

We're already a leader in reducing emissions. We don't need the climate Accord to do that.

What negative effect does pulling out of the accord have on the US or the world?

Sure but the Paris Accord does none of that neither did the Kyoto Agreement we didn’t join either.

This user is currently being ignored

Don’t quote facts out of context you need to normalize the data

You can combine United States, India, Japan, Germany all together and it wouldn’t be as much is China. Until they get in line what’s the point. We already do more than they do. And seriously The size of the United States needs to be taken into account we have 5 million And Japan has 1.2. But they are also 26 times smaller than we are. So they pollute 30+ tons add carbon dioxide to our 5.

And FRANCE! The PARIS accord! Let’s Compare with them. We are 18 times bigger than they are and they pollute Almost a half 1 million tons Annually. So their equivalent is 8 tons annually compared to our 5 tons. I would bet if you went down all the countries you would find America to be quite low in comparison. Including China and Russia because most of their territory isn’t industrialized or even settled

I meant Paris agreement

Yeah but no thanks to Donald J Trump who rolled back all of the Obama era requirements and then some, not to mention promoting fossil fuel over alternative energy....many businesses are doing it anyway despite this, doing it on their own. And who gives a shit how big a country is, we all need to do our part, I’m ok with US doing more. Doing nothing is NOT the answer.
I can remember when LA and other large cities where the smog was so thick you couldn’t see your hand in front of your face and YOU want to go backwards?

We haven't gone backwards so stop generalizing. Our emissions have been going down for the last ten years. You just want to believe Trump's ruining everything so you have something to complain about. If Trump's policies were a problem you would've seen a spike in emissions by now.

Yes, thanks to measures taken before Trump took office we made great progress, he Trump put the kibosh to all of that, making us go backwards all for the love of $ not helping the environment and yes I have a lot of problems with his policies.

This user is currently being ignored

This user is currently being ignored

Timeout you realize Obama's been gone for 3 years right? If Trump's policies were so bad we wouldn't gone backwards by now. The latest emission statistics say otherwise.

Yep, that’s exactly what this is. Straw man on both sides

So you don’t want to protect the planet god gave us.... not surprised.

I’m not surprised you say something so ridiculous.

Twin don't be sorry ptellini doesn't think humans can have an effect on this 6000 year old world that God created

🙄

Can one so fly left please explain how it negatively affects anything? We didn’t join Kyoto and were among the leaders in reducing emissions and creating renewables.
This non binding agreement with zero enforcement mechanisms is an aspirational document that countries can ignore in their national interest if they want to.

I don’t understand the lefty freak out about a worthless non binding piece of paper that means nothing to anyone except the paper pushers at the UN.

Put some binding goals in it, have some enforcement mechanisms, take away opt out provisions - you one make it like the iron clad Iran’s deal that is currently saving the world from disaster.
What a joke.

Because Democrats are only allowed to hate the United States

This user is currently being ignored

🙄

Dang, thanks for enlightening me! 🙄

“Supporting environmental protection and conservation” is talking point with no value.

Signing a feckless agreement with no way to hold any country accountable for their actions or non actions is not “Supporting environmental protection and conservation”.

Blindly following dogma that blames climate change on everything in order to increase government regulation and control is not “Supporting environmental protection and conservation”.

Blindly? LOL The guy says he’s going to do something and does it and that is called blindly following? LOL
It’s nice to have somebody elected that actually does what he says he’s going to do.

Somehow Trump supporters are blind - while the last administration arrogantly admitted it relied on the stupidity of their voters and the compliant media to sell their policies.

Let me shift gears... so what is Trump doing to alleviate inevitable harm on our environment? What are your suggested solutions of being a part of the Accord is not?

*IF being a part of the Accord is not

To continue to let market forces and innovation help us cut emissions and increase renewables like we are currently doing without being a part of a sham agreement with zero enforcement mechanisms.

“Inevitable harm on our environment” - what is inevitable is the humans negatively affect the environment by merely existing.

“To continue to let market forces and innovation help us cut emissions”

Hey, is that a shoutout to California and our tough vehicle emissions standards? Glad to know you continue to support them!

Government regulation forcing undue expense on the free market is not the solution - once you mandate things the cost of the product increases - supply and demand.
Nice try though.

Why do you say it wouldn’t have reduced emissions? What have we done in the US that has improved our chances? Why is it a bad idea to have all nations of the PLANET work together to save the PLANET?

Because nothing good was expected from countries like China.

Let the rest of the world figure it out. America is doing fine improving environmental conditions in its own.

It was a “feel good” solution but really was an economic redistribution scam.
From the most optimistic projections, the Paris Agreement in 85 years would lower the earth’s average temperature a whopping .03degrees.

Emissions have continually been decreasing year after year in the US. Private businesses and innovation has been the #1 reason for this. Not government and certainly not globalists. China and India are essentially getting a free pass with the Paris Agreement even though they are the BIGGEST polluters and emit the most by FAR. It’s a joke.

Marganalize - nice theory.
We cut more that they do - action is leadership to conservatives - signing a feckless piece of paper is leadership to liberals.

The contrast couldn’t be clearer.

I will bite though - how are we marginalized?

That is pure delusion - we DL have made more progress than the countries that signed the feckless Paris and Kyoto agreements. Leadership is action not signing a piece of paper.

President Trump has designated 1,000,000 new acres of land as protected wilderness.

If we’re leading, then where’s the progress towards clean energy incentives, reduced emissions, higher standards for air and water? I agree with you, America should be leading the world with innovation and great strides towards clean energy, but the truth is that we aren’t.

Renewable energy is the fastest-growing energy source in the United States, increasing 67 percent from 2000 to 2016. Renewables made up nearly 15 percent of net U.S. electricity generation in 2016, with the bulk coming from hydropower (6.5 percent) and wind power (5.6 percent).


www.c2es.org/content/renewable-energy/


Global CO2 emissions continue to rise, reaching 33.4 Billion tons last year. Yet, many will be startled to learn that America easily leads the world in reducing CO2 output. Our reduction of 794 million tons over the past decade is a 1.4% annual rate of decrease.


www.forbes.com/sites/simonlack/2018/08/23/guess-whos-most-effective-at-combating-global-warming/#18b28c405cdb

☝🏼☝🏼

What data shows we are doing the best?

It doesn’t matter even if America was doing enough (which it isn’t), climate change doesn’t respect sovereignty. This is a global issue. Not an American issue. One country having the resources to do its part doesn’t mean shit.

That why it doesn’t matter what you sign as long as China and India continue to do what they do.

Exactly. What we do will make no difference while China and India continually and astronomically increase emissions. It is certainly not worth destroying our economy and way of life for virtue signaling or to feel “woke”. Besides, CO2 is a lagging indicator of warming anyway. Warming and increase in CO2 tend to trend closely, but the warming brings CO2 levels up. The CO2 doesn’t cause the warming. The warming causes the CO2 to rise. And we have a loooonngggggg way to go before CO2 is anywhere near dangerously high. We are still far closer to the lower end of the life spectrum of CO2 levels than the upper. If we could get it up quite a bit more, we could enter another optimum period.

The aim of Paris Accord is solely to redistribute American wealth to the rest of the world. And make us feel good about it.

Otto provide data to support all your claims. Otherwise no we pollute 150% of the carbon emissions!

Orange man is bad.

Bad, Orange Man. Bad.

Orange Man Bad to illegal immigrants, Hollywood hypocrites and their sycophants, SJW’s, globalists and the entrenched bureaucracy.

Orange man good for minorities and working class.

It takes strength to stand up to sheep??? That’s funny!!!

The cult has spoken.

Where is that figure coming from?

The US has been one of, if not the, leading country in terms of reducing carbon emissions, the US has been working on renewable energy, cars, turbines, hydroelectric, nuclear, we’ve been making great progress. We’re not even close to the leading country in carbon emissions, you tell me when you have to walk through an American city wearing gas masks because the pollution is so bad you can’t see 10 feet in front of you.

Ladies and gentlemen (and others) I present the TDS argument of the day:

We will reduce worldwide GDP by 25% because we got out of an agreement even though we continue do more than the countries in the agreement.

I’m glad you had a chance to flame a 16 year old girl. Enjoy your famine, increased wildfires, melting icecaps, ecosystem destruction, insect outbreaks and intense hurricanes.

Holy hysteria - a 16 year old privilege whiner is their new hero.

“famine, increased wildfires, melting icecaps, ecosystem destruction, insect outbreaks and intense hurricanes.”

How deluded and partisan do you have to be to think some corrupt politician circlejerk is going to prevent intense hurricanes? I have some bad news for you. If humans left the earth tomorrow, all the ice caps will still melt. Do you realize that?

@anjured

Does Nicholas Sandman sound familiar to you?

No coffee, Greta Thunderstorm says we already did the damage!

The only people bringing up Greta on this site are the Trumpets. It’s not that she’s our hero. It’s that for some reason, she’s your enemy. What exactly about her triggers your fragile egos to the point that you need to actively antagonize a teenager?

Nicholas Sandman

No conservative thinks she is the enemy - just a pretentious, privileged caricature of the left.

You are the one saying we think of her as an enemy because that’s the way lefties think - anyone not accepting dogma must be the enemy.
Hate and labeling enemies is the provenance of the current Dem party.

Soooo... this is revenge then? Owning the libs by making fun of a teenager who is merely trying to make what she believes is a positive difference in society? Such a community of friendly, functioning adults we have here on SOH.

Barron Trump is from the same age group. I’m sure you’d be just as critical of him if he advocated for climate reform. He’s a part of the generation that cares about this issue. It’s not outside the realm of possibility.

No one:

Trumpite sees 16-year-old girl passionate about a political issue: “I must attack her!”

Such bravery. Truly fighting for society. Beware high school sophmores! We’ve got some hot shots here! *clap clap clap*

anj, people in the public eye get criticized. This is not a new thing. You have a right to put yourself out there and tell the world your views, and the world has the right to respond to that. If her handlers thought she’d be granted immunity in the court of public opinion they thought wrong

I agree some of it has gone off the rails, but that’s the nature of being in the public eye.

True, but the malice that these people have for this 16-year-old girl is really something else. Simply for having the nerve to support and advocate for solutions for what she (and almost every scientist) views as a global crisis. But MUST. OWN. LIBS!!!

This is the malice you are freaking out about - it is the only post on this thread that mentioned her:

DSH:
No one:
Greta Thunberg: How dare you?!


Wow what right wing malice. She is forever tarnished by the hateful malice of that comment.

Holy triggered lefty Batman.

Revenge? - we simply pointed out that the left demagogued a 16 year old who was minding his own business standing in a public place waiting for a bus.

Please show us the malice toward Greta on this post or site you are so concerned about.
I called her a privileged caricature of the left - is that malice?
This should be interesting.

We are to sit on our hands, look down in shame as she thunders “how dare you” to us “climate deniers” while an adoring audience of lefties cheers her on - sure thing.

@anjured

Did you react the same way when the Washington Post destroyed the reputation a of 16 year old boy from Kentucky? Why did the media have to do that?

Yes nacho, that’s the point I was making.

I absolutely took the same position in the case of Sandmann, despite the fact that Nicholas wasn’t making any sort of productive statement or advocating for any cause. He was just standing their with a smug smile on his face. He’s a fucking kid. Even if he was doing what he was accused of doing, he’s a kid. I made stupid choices and did cringey shit when I was 16 too.

I also think it’s cringey that the UN is using a kid, and letting her make irrational statements, hence the joke. ⬆️

That’s great. Thinking something is cringey is one thing. An adult antagonizing a child is pathetic any way you choose to cut it.

You think I antagonized her?

Well I sure as hell don’t think going out of your way to post about her, apropos of nothing, and casting her in what you believe to be a negative light, was an effort on your part to praise her attempt at civil discourse.

The real irony here is that you “jokingly” accused her of inserting her opinion, while doing the same thing about her. So pretty much:

No one:

DHS: “But Greta!”

Wow! As if I didn’t do that on purpose? 🤔

Look, the “civil discourse” included the words “How dare you?!”

It’s very obvious to those who have a sense of humor that I was laughing at her WORDS rather than HER.

If I was joking about her aspergers, or depression, or age, then I can see exactly where you’re coming from. That would be wrong...

Well, unlike you, she actually had a room full of world leaders who had invited her to share her opinions on climate change. Not exactly “no one.”

You on the other hand?

Darn...I didn’t see all the fallacies I committed in my original comment. Thanks for pointing them out. Noted.

New subject: did you see the picture of Trump giving a medal to that military dog?

Yes. It was fake, but adorable. That dog deserves all of the hugs and treats and medals.

Was the media kinda dumb for being outraged by it?

What outrage was there from MSM? I don’t recall seeing any outrage. It was a cute, stupid nothing.

Never mind then 🙄

Lmfao!!! No, I’ll go ahead and keep my car and lights and you can go ride a horse and live in a cave.

It’s funny you bring up lights. The reason that there have been blanket blackouts in California is because of the increased intensity of wildfires as a result of climate change. So, if you enjoy lights, you might want to reconsider.

Lol wow that was very simplistic. The rolling blackouts are because they don’t control the brush enough and when fires start, like we know they are going to every year, the rolling blackouts are the last resort to hopefully not spark another fire. If that terrible state (and I say that as a proud California refugee who was able to flee) did controlled burns or really any forest management, the fires wouldn’t be nearly as bad every year. But they won’t do that so this is what they get.

Also, not having light because of rolling blackouts for a few days is MUCH better than never having lights like most of the climate-Nazis want. So there’s that.

Climate change casing fires is the lefty mantra.
I guess the massive wildfires of past centuries were just ahead of their time.

Not only was your answer incorrect, everyone here is now dumber as a result having heard your response. You're awarded no points and may God have mercy on your soul.

Not sure who you are talking to....

The Spanish Armada.

Is that from Billy Madison?

Nacho. No one said climate change is the sole cause of fires. But it is causing more fires, and they are further reaching and more intense, despite advanced control techniques.

“Despite advances control techniques”. I wish that was true but in California, it is not the case.

Behind China, we are the worlds 2nd largest polluter of greenhouse gases.

But when you look at per capita, which is a much more accurate representation, we are 7th.

Which is still really high on the list. I thought America was supposed to be a world leader in innovation. Why shouldn’t we lead this?

Innovation=industry=high emissions

Our innovation is why why have high emissions.

Not necessarily! Innovation for clean energy and renewable resources so we limit the fossil fuel emissions.

When laws and regulations are passed that stifle innovation or make it harder and more burdensome, industry is less likely to innovate.

Right off the cliff when everyone else wants to stop?

You have it backwards. The rest of the world wants to jump off the cliff and shut down the economy. We want to continue our way of life and not live in the Stone Age.

Democrats are backwards and upside-down by nature

Biden referred to it as the Paris Peace Accords (from circa 1973) last week. 😺

👍🏻

Why?

Because the manmade global warming hoax is just a money redistribution scam disguised by manipulated studies as “proof”. It was designed to steal US wealth for the global elites wrapped up in a plea for humanity. Always question anything that is proposed with fear.

In other news, the earth is flat.

Kscott, let’s set aside global warming for just one second.

Do you agree that pollution in the air, water, and land is bad for the environment?

...

Sorry bad for humans***

“Do you agree that pollution in the air, water, and land is bad for the environment?”

Yes, of course! I’m 1000% for cleaner energy but not at the expense of useless carbon taxes. Even by their own standards, they say they could only adjust the temp by 1 dog over 100 yrs. What’s the optimal climate temperature?

How should we go about encouraging green energy?

...

I’m all for that as long as it’s through private corporations, not subsidized, and we are not charged green energy taxes. Then I’m fully onboard.

Green energy is not as profitable as carbon. Planting trees after cutting them is not as profitable as just cutting them down. It is cheaper to make one use packages instead of recyclable ones. It’s cheaper to dump trash in the ocean than to properly handle it.

Should we continue contributing to pollution and environmentally hazardous activities until private businesses decide to do otherwise?

I think I made it clear that I’m against pollution. We live in a disposable society today which I don’t like. But bigger govt is not the answer. You will see new technologies being released within the next months to years that have been suppressed by the Gov’t that you want to give more power to. They steal the patents for stuff that would clean up our air/water/food BECAUSE they make more money by suppressing it for the corporations. How do you think Congressmembers become millionaires on a $174k salary?

Please document any “patent stealing” events that the government is responsible for..

You still didn’t answer my question. It’s more profitable for a business to destroy the environment than to try to fix it. If you give the decision to them, they will choose to destroy the environment. You want to give less power to the government, and more to big business. That’s equally scary.

...

Do you think I have access to documentation to prove to you that the Gov’t steals patents? Use logic.

Corporations need to make a profit but the consumers decide where to spend their money. Consumers do a really good job of choosing which ones are good for the environment for the most part.

1st, If you have no proof, then why would you believe it? Use logic, you can’t believe something without any evidence.

2nd, No they don’t. They choose what’s cheapest. Show me the data that supports what you’re saying.

...

www.wired.com/2013/04/gov-secrecy-orders-on-patents/

There you go.

Also, corporations don’t always go the cheapest route. There are customers at all levels of wealth.

Government doesn’t “steal patents”, they put time limits on ones that can threaten national security. People can also receive monetary compensation for their idea if it’s banned for national security.

“Under the law, an inventor can seek compensation if defense agencies choose to use the idea or if the applicant can prove damages were suffered by not being permitted to take it to the marketplace.”

It’s also incredibly rare. 5000 out of upwards of 4 to 5 million patent applications.

...

Just a bunch of self serving🤬Globalists trying to screw us over😖‼️

Dofus, we all live on the same “globe”...🤪

It hasn’t been in place that long

Just interested if they made progress. Last I heard it was a lot of promises. My concern is it is just a money pit.
Why not put sanctions on countries building coal plant? And sanctions on countries selling coal to other countries?