Usernames

18 minutes ago, jcsmith said:

The U.S. is the second largest contributor here. India is making changes despite them having a general power problem. China has been making huge changes. The third world may rely largely on coal but they are such a small percentage in relation. Your information is dated propaganda.

Again, pollution is population driven.  Obvious to anyone serious about the question. I wonder how much cleaner and more efficient the US would be had its population stabilized around 220 million, as predicted in the early 1970s.  Almost all population growth in the US is because of immigration.  Another 100 billion people demanding the American lifestyle and putting stress on water, electricity, natural gas, agriculture, homebuilding, freeways, etc. 

1 minute ago, Srikcir said:

Hillary won 80% of voters in Pittsburgh. Trump represents the citizens of Pittsburgh by default as POTUS.

 

President Obama stated, "Pittsburgh stands as a bold example of how to create new jobs and industries while transitioning to a 21st century economy."  Over the decades Pittsburgh transitioned from a coal and steel-based economy and manufacturing to a blue collar-based economy such as healthcare and financial service economy. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_Pittsburgh

Pittsburgh is not the model for Trump's anti-global warming policy.

Maybe Trump meant he was representing the citizens of Moscow.

Trump won Pennsylvania.

19 minutes ago, Grouse said:

Should be additional import duty on American goods. We all have to abide by environmental impact regs so need to level the playing field. Trump will understand that.

The status of forests and the natural environment is a good clue as to who is actually doing the best to protect the environment.  Texas and France are roughly the same size.  Texas, which has a large area that is natural desert, and another large area that is natural plains, is nevertheless covered by forests on 38 percent of its territory.  France, OTOH, is only 29 percent forest covered.  Just who is ravaging the environment.  The two most important carbon sinks on the planet are oceans and forests.  The Chinese and Indians are poisoning the oceans.  And the Europeans have virtually deforested their continent. How about we make that carbon tax dependent on just how much of its own natural environment and forests individual countries have destroyed?

"It is estimated that—at the beginning of European settlement—in 1630 the area of forest land that would become the United States was 423 million hectares or about 46 percent of the total land area. By 1907, the area of forest land had declined to an estimated 307 million hectares or 34 percent of the total land area. Forest area has been relatively stable since 1907. In 1997, 302 million hectares— or 33 percent of the total land area of the United States— was in forest land. Today’s forest land area amounts to about 70 percent of the area that was forested in 1630. Since 1630, about 120 million hectares of forest land have been converted to other uses—mainly agricultural. More than 75 percent of the net conversion to other uses occurred in the 19th century."

https://www.fia.fs.fed.us/library/ForestFactsMetric.pdf

17 minutes ago, DavoTheGun said:

Have a look at this, a young man with a Brain ! 

 

Absolutely 100 percent correct.  The problems are China, India, and the Third World.  And the Paris Treaty does nothing to address these countries/regions, except give money to their governments to spend in their traditional corrupt way. BTW, the video on UK cannibal kebabs that immediately follows is equally disturbing. 

It's okay. Germany will just try and dump these Afghans onto Poland and Hungary.  At least that's what she will tell her voters.  More virtue signalling from Beer Belly Merkel, who doesn't personally face the consequences of her actions.

1 minute ago, darksidedog said:

It would also have to renege on loads more trade agreements too, though it has shown today that it cannot be trusted to keep its word.

Well, you just encouraged the rest of the world to enact a special carbon tax against the US.  I presume that those "loads more trade agreements" would already have been violated by such a tax.  Or do other countries continue to always be free from any commitments to actually do something in your world?

6 minutes ago, darksidedog said:

I think it is time for the rest of the world to go back and look at the agreement, and introduce a substantial "Carbon Tax" on all products emanating from non participating countries.

America first will take on a new meaning when it is the first country to go broke.

Actually, I sort of like this idea.  That means the US can go ahead and put up tariff walls, too.  A good way to end globalization, outsourcing, and immigration. Glad you thought of it.  Let's go!

42 minutes ago, darksidedog said:

Remember, much of the problem stems from the industrialized nations that have been pumping bilge into the atmosphere for hundreds of years.

Hence, the US and Europe should shoulder some of the blame and hence assist with reparations.

Pollution is driven by people and the demands of people. Exploding population growth is the major reason that carbon emissions will continue to rise. What are the two countries with over 1 billion people in population?  China and India.  What are the two countries exempt and free to pollute until 2030?  China and India.

2 hours ago, darksidedog said:

I was talking about the massive amount of people in small rural communities way away from the big cities, who burn fossil fuels for everything. Thats like 300 million in India alone. America was half way there already, but now it chooses to go backwards, while the rest of the world at least tries to go forward.

Both China and India could take care of those hundreds of millions and supply them with other clean alternatives.  Instead, India is spending billions on sending rockets to Mars to do what has already been done several times over by other countries. Or China is spending billions to create artificial islands and claim territory it has no right to.  Giving them a pass until 2030 as the Paris Treaty does, means they can go on misallocating money to these areas.  And when 2030 finally hits, they'll turn up their hands and say, sorry, no can do.  Then, what?

Just now, darksidedog said:

According to the Department of Energy, there are about 373,000 Americans working in solar energy – more than double that of the coal industry.

Implementing green energies would create many more jobs than the loss of the coal workers ones. This is a policy that will lose jobs for Americans at the same time as diminishing the country as a whole. I'm sure Americans as a whole will be delighted that they are now to be seen as a pariah, for the sake of a few jobs that will hold back the growth of the nation as a whole. In fact probably the only country in the world who will lose jobs from this stupidity is America itself.

And these are all "green jobs" achieved without the demands of the Paris Treaty.  So how is rejecting the treaty going to change this?  It isn't. Companies will continue this path.  But the US will not be forced to give away US tax dollars to virtually every country on the planet. 

8 minutes ago, KarenBravo said:

Seems US cities are going to go their own way anyway by continuing to follow the Paris Accord.

How are the likes of Detroit, Baltimore, and Youngstown going to reduce their carbon emissions? They already have next to zero economic growth and activity. They are dead zones.  Empty threat.

1 minute ago, boomerangutang said:

                           For many years, the US had its influence (in being at the vanguard of alt.energy) tarnished, because every time an American proposed clean energy solutions, some non-American would say something like, "WHO ARE YOU TO TELL THE REST OF THE WORLD about clean energy?!  Americans are the most polluting country on earth!"

 

                            Then, starting about 30 years ago, things have been gradually getting better.  America has started cleaning up its rivers and air and soil (remember 'Super Fund'?).   Concurrently, Americans are at the vanguard of many alt.energy innovations.  All is looking rosier.   ....until today.

 

                     Now, Trump has just fumbled the US back to the 2 yard defensive line.   The quarterback is in the end zone with bad wrists, supported by players who are billionaires with 65% fat between their ears.    

You admit American industry has greatly improved its clean energy technology.  All without the Treaty. So, things are going fine in the US without the treaty.  What does the treaty do, then, that changes things for American industry? Answer, nothing.  All it does is try to mandate that the US give taxpayer dollars to just about every other country on the planet through a Green Fund. Obama already managed to self appropriate one billion dollars. No more.

7 minutes ago, sujoop said:

Steve Bannon (and 'whiting-out' Obama) obviously Trumped Mattis....
 

 

Another reason our troops should NOT be there.

3 minutes ago, boomerangutang said:

                               There are many more US jobs related to alternative clean energy, than there are jobs related to coal.  Trump, in his fathomless ignorance, is hurting job prospects for Americans.  Now, many of those alternative energy jobs will transfer to China, India and Europe.  Thanks Trump, you imbecile.

Why? There is nothing to stop the United States from implementing more efficient and cleaner energy technologies just because it has rejected a treaty.  American companies are already becoming cleaner and more energy efficient without this treaty or the requirement in it that Americans dole out money to every other country on the planet.

5 minutes ago, darksidedog said:

They have a far bigger challenge given the state of technology and development in their countries.

Wrong. Because the state of their (China and India's) technology is actually newer, as newly industrialized countries, and the fact that they are just now installing many new technologies, it should be much easier and less expensive for them.  They need not replace.  Just start from the beginning with more efficient and cleaner technologies.  Similar to the industrial advantage Germany enjoyed after World War II, when its bombed out infrastructure and industry was replaced with all new machinery and material (while the poor old British, btw, continued to lumber along with 19th century standards in many/most places). The fact is that China and India do not WANT to take this path, because they have a pollution advantage right now.  And they don't want to give it up. And they never will give it up. By 2030, they would have had all the cards.  Not now.

The American people, the American congress, and the American people decide what harms or does not harm their interests.  Not some French midget.

1 minute ago, boomerangutang said:

Getting nearly every country in the world to agree on improving conditions in the world is no mean feat.  

Which is why the Paris Treaty offered the "poor countries" a bribe in the form of a Green Fund.

9 minutes ago, canuckamuck said:

The Paris accord will not guarantee any of the things from your cartoon. And who's to say those things won't be easier with a warmer climate. I have nothing against the battle against pollution. I do not see the logic in the approach that CO2 needs to be a controlled substance. Nor the massive societal cost that controlling it requires.

Here is what will likely happen: "the U.S. may well achieve its pledged greenhouse emission reductions, regardless of the Paris agreement. According to the Energy Information Administration, energy-related carbon emissions have declined from about 6,000 million metric tons in 2005 (the agreement's baseline date) to 5,170 in 2016 — a 14 percent reduction in a decade. Ironically, neither Obama nor any climate treaties are responsible for that reduction. It's largely a result of power plants transitioning from coal to cleaner-burning natural gas, which is more affordable and abundant due to the fracking revolution."

What will NOT happen is Obama's self approval of the appropriation of American taxpayer dollars to other countries throughout the world (the bribe money that generated the approval of "the rest of the world" to the treaty).

http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/energy-environment/334973-senate-deserves-right-of-refusal-on-paris-agreement

2 minutes ago, KarenBravo said:

Then why is it going to take four years to withdraw from the treaty?

Says who? Snopes. Propaganda. Nobody can enforce an international agreement that was only concluded by the president in an executive order without senate ratification. If the US says it is out, it's out. Who is going to make them participate?  The World Police? The EU? Communist China?

Only by Obama's diktat and imagination was the US ever part of the Paris Treaty.  Because congress must ratify all treaties.  This treaty was never ratified.  Never even debated.  The US didn't really pull out because it was never actually in.

Freedom of speech, particularly political speech is a core principle of American values. Hanging public figures, especially politicians, in effigy or doing otherwise with their image is traditional. I don't see what the big hullabaloo is--or the desperate attempt to bring in Ted Nugent or other political demonstrators protests of Obama.  All well and good on both sides. What sort of pansies can't take this type political expression?

58 minutes ago, Chip Allen said:

When will western governments grow a  pair of stones and DEMAND that Thailand rescind this law?

Yes, Bwana.  Now, Bwana.

1 hour ago, mike324 said:

I think trade works both ways in the globalize world. Both sides will hurt if there are boycotts. Why so defensive if South Korea wants to remove the THAAD, the new President's cabinet was not made aware hence the review.One of the main reasons why US have bases in so many countries is to strengthen their own defense, in return they give them aid. So both sides gain from this arrangement.

The US troops in S. Korea are just potential cannon fodder. Nothing more.  They're just there to insure that the US is brought into combat in case the North invades the South. Well, if the South is so chummy with China and China's ally is North Korea, let the Chinese station 28,000 troops on the tripwire. Tired of paying for these parasite countries.

1 minute ago, oxo1947 said:

Or show up---dont do anything...just sit around get money from the state because your not allowed to work----which ones better ??

Give them work permits, and the rest of their extended families will be on their way in no time. You won't be able to walk into a 7-11 and see it manned by real Irish in a few years.

Okay, let's remove the damn THAAD.  And US troops while we're at it.  And maybe review all the easy access S. Korea has to American markets.  Let the Koreans feel an American boycott, instead of a Chinese one. Sick of these people.