Illegal land occupation

[webfact]

OPINION:

A chat in Bangkok about an ‘unpleasant experience’ with Trump

By Suthichai Yoon 
The Nation

 

Paul Polman, CEO of Unilever, has been actively involved in negotiating for the launch of the Paris Agreement. When Donald Trump became president, he announced that he was pulling the United States out of the pact. 

Polman, who also chairs the World Business Council for Sustainable Development, decided to visit the White House to try to convince Trump to stay in. He failed. But he won’t give up.

 

Late last month in Bangkok I spoke with the Unilever boss about his “unpleasant experience” with President Trump:

When I was told that you were coming to Thailand and would do an interview, I immediately thought about you and Donald Trump.

No resemblance, I hope.

 

Two years ago we met in Bangkok when you were on your way to Paris as part of the private-sector push for the climate agreement. But then Trump became president and said he was pulling out of the Paris Agreement. That got me confused. You had told me the Paris agreement was good. And Trump now says it’s bad. So who’s right and who’s wrong?

 

So, the question for you is: Who do you believe?

 

Well, I have to believe what the majority of the world says is right. How many countries have signed up now?

 

196. The two countries that did not sign in the beginning were Nicaragua and Syria, for different reasons. They have finally signed up now. So, the US is the only country in the world that says it will not be on the list.

 

This is one of the best agreements in the world where all the 196 countries have come together to declare their commitment to decarbonise the world’s atmosphere. Thailand has committed herself to a 20 per cent reduction.

 

Trump happens to believe that if all countries are in, it must be bad for the United States – just like he did with TPP [Trans-Pacific Trade Pact]. If everybody signs in, it must be bad for the US. That’s how he reasons. 

 

So, when the rumours came out that he [Trump] was going to pull the US out of the Paris Agreement – and since the US had been instrumental in getting all countries to increase their ambition in this regard – John Kerry as the US Secretary of State then and President Obama to a lesser extent – had done an amazing job preparing the world for Paris. So, there was a role for the US to play.

 

I told myself that I could not let Trump get the US out of the Paris Agreement without my at least trying to convince him to stay in.

 

So I went to the White House. It was one of the more unpleasant experiences, may I say? But it was very clear that some of the people around him believed staying in was better, because the economic forces were already pointing to that direction. In fact, the majority of the people in the US, even Republicans, believe in the consequences of climate change. So, the majority wants to stay in the Paris Agreement.

 

But for some reason, Trump decided that he wanted the US to leave the agreement.

 

But you knew even before you went to see Trump that he was pulling out of the agreement. So why did you go?

 

I have a simple philosophy in life that if I believe in something, I must try to explore all the possibilities to convince someone about the merits of a good thing. I would have felt miserable if I hadn’t done anything to change his mind. That would have taken away the possibility of my being able to criticise him, too.

 

So I felt that, having been heavily involved in the negotiations leading to the Paris Agreement, it was an obligation on my part [to try to convince Trump]. Unfortunately, it did not work.

 

So, what we saw was that as soon as Trump made the announcement to leave the Paris Agreement, we actually saw the whole US rallying behind the agreement. We then created a movement with 4,600 companies, states and cities – a movement that is called “We’re Still In”. Jerry Brown. Michael Bloomberg. These are the key faces of the movement. But we have since seen more companies sign up, more than we could have ever imagined. We witnessed a groundswell of support for a move to do even more than what we had committed ourselves to in Paris.

 

Therefore, although we may have lost the moral force of the United States in convincing other countries to increase their ambition, we certainly have created a movement in the US to move even faster. 

 

Trump said he would create more jobs through opening up coal mines again. That’s political blah blah. The reality is in the last 10 years or so, most coal mines are closing – and those that are still open are heavily automated because the economics of coal, now that there is shale gas, doesn’t make any sense anymore. The number of jobs being created in the green energy sector is 10 times bigger than the fossil sector now. So the economic forces have made a decision. 

 

Trump, in that sense, is a bit of an outlier. But it will take him four years to be able to leave the Paris Agreement because the way this was set up from the beginning was you can’t just get up and leave.

 

So, by the time, he [Trump] does have to make a decision whether the US will ultimately leave the Paris Agreement or not, I think in the end they might eventually decide to stay in.

 

He may not still be in office by then.

 

That’s another possibility. That will require a separate discussion.

 

You said it was an “unpleasant” encounter. How unpleasant was it?

 

Well, if you have two people who believe strongly in something very different, then the meeting normally isn’t very pleasant. It’s like a retailer who wants a lower price the moment that you want to increase the price. Those can’t be the best meetings, can they?

 

Source: http://www.nationmultimedia.com/detail/opinion/30333364

 

-- © Copyright The Nation 2017-12-07

[craigt3365]

2 hours ago, webfact said:

Trump said he would create more jobs through opening up coal mines again. That’s political blah blah. The reality is in the last 10 years or so, most coal mines are closing – and those that are still open are heavily automated because the economics of coal, now that there is shale gas, doesn’t make any sense anymore. The number of jobs being created in the green energy sector is 10 times bigger than the fossil sector now. So the economic forces have made a decision. 

And yet, many Trump supporters still buy his political blah blah.

[FreddieRoyle]

I feel sick reading this. Nobody, nobody at all, has done greater and irrepairable damage to the the environment than Unilever and it's oil palm business. Millions upon millions of acres of rainforest burned and all animals habitats destroyed, the chemicals used and even child labor. And here the guy is, sugar wouldn't melt in his mouth, blaming our Donald. I used to regularly fly over Kalimantan 25 years ago, the scale of destruction was incredible. It's farcical, and I am not amused. 

[craigt3365]

13 minutes ago, FreddieRoyle said:

I feel sick reading this. Nobody, nobody at all, has done greater and irrepairable damage to the the environment than Unilever and it's oil palm business. Millions upon millions of acres of rainforest burned and all animals habitats destroyed, the chemicals used and even child labor. And here the guy is, sugar wouldn't melt in his mouth, blaming our Donald. I used to regularly fly over Kalimantan 25 years ago, the scale of destruction was incredible. It's farcical, and I am not amused. 

Though palm oil plantations are bad, they are far from the worst regarding deforestation.  You should fly around South America some time.  Stunning. 

 

In the end, it's the responsibility of each country to protect it's natural resources.  And not exploit them.

 

 

[milwaukeeboy]

It is the responsibility of the governments of these nation states to monitor and control their own environments and biodiversity.

It is not the responsibility of the United Nations and international pacts that form supranational agencies to collect carbon credit taxes to coerce.

Somehow the words get twisted and obscured creating the goal of slowing down climate change when the focus should be on reduction of all pollution and a cleaner environment.

Climate change is a natural phenomenon and the amount or percentage that human activities contribute have not and will not ever be established. A carbon credit tax is not a solution.

TRUMP 2020

[IAMHERE]

Exploitation of the American tax payer was all that the Paris Accords was about. The US was giving billions of dollars to other countries, hundreds of billions. The other 196 countries can go it without America.

. 

[andersonat]

59 minutes ago, milwaukeeboy said:

 

Climate change is a natural phenomenon and the amount or percentage that human activities contribute have not and will not ever be established.

 

Try this website:- 

[It was the first one that I could find.]

 

https://www.ucsusa.org/global-warming/science-and-impacts/science/human-contribution-to-gw-faq.html#.WiixzbaB2_4

 

 

 

 

 

[andersonat]

36 minutes ago, IAMHERE said:

Exploitation of the American tax payer was all that the Paris Accords was about. The US was giving billions of dollars to other countries, hundreds of billions. The other 196 countries can go it without America.

. 

 

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/06/02/climate/trump-paris-green-climate-fund.html

 

"In announcing his decision to withdraw from the Paris climate accord, President Trump also said the United States would stop contributing to the Green Climate Fund, a United Nations program that he claimed could eventually cost the country “billions and billions and billions” of dollars.

Industrialized countries have voluntarily pledged $10.3 billion since 2013 to help poorer nations reduce greenhouse gas emissions and address the effects of climate change. The United States has pledged by far the most — $3 billion, twice that of the second-largest pledger, Japan." 

 

 - Please provide a source for your claim of "hundreds of billions (of Dollars)".

 

 

Edited December 7, 2017 by andersonat

[spidermike007]

Trump happens to believe that if all countries are in, it must be bad for the United States – just like he did with TPP [Trans-Pacific Trade Pact]. If everybody signs in, it must be bad for the US. That’s how he reasons. Of course this meeting was unpleasant. Can you just imagine the smell of sulphur, that emanates from this mans body? LOL.

 

Yep. That is how this neophyte, juvenile, inexperienced, nearly insane, totally out of touch with reality, hateful, woefully unprepared for the job at hand, not terribly intelligent man works out a problem. That combined with the wishes of the lobbyists. Period. Decision made. Re-polulating the swamp. One lobbyist, and one member of Goldman Sachs at a time. To label this administration one of the most corrupt ever, would be an insult to Al Capone and Tammany Hall. 

 

Then there’s Mnuchin, a financier known as “the foreclosure king.” He’s worth an estimated $300 million. You’d think the guy could afford a Mint upgrade on JetBlue, if not a Learjet of his own. And he probably can, but why pay when you can get something for free? We recently learned that Mnuchin wanted to use a government airplane to shuttle him and his wife Louise Linton around Europe during their honeymoon. This would cost taxpayers $25,000 per hour. Some sane person denied the request, but months later, Mnuchin and Linton managed to finagle a private jet, at government expense, to view the solar eclipse in Lexington, Kentucky.

 

http://www.newsweek.com/trump-pruitt-price-devos-669853

 

 

Edited December 7, 2017 by spidermike007

[Ahab]

The Paris agreement would not reduce global warming by an amount that was measurable (if everyone did what they were supposed to do). It cost too much and did nothing except maybe make people feel good about themselves. If the object was to get the US to pay a lot of money to third world countries then it was a fabulous agreement, but if the object was to reduce the increase in global temperature then it was a complete waste of time (except for the feel good aspect).

 

[stevenl]

1 hour ago, IAMHERE said:

Exploitation of the American tax payer was all that the Paris Accords was about. The US was giving billions of dollars to other countries, hundreds of billions. The other 196 countries can go it without America.

. 

Not true.

[Thaidream]

Everything Donald Trump does and says is for his own benefit and to benefit the wealthy. He refuses to accept the fact that the continual use of fossil fuels will eventually destroy the world. He refuses to believe anything other than his own mindset based upon his limited exposure to other ideas and ideals.  He is convinced illegals are destroying America- yet he uses them in his own business;  he declares that using overseas labor and companies are anti America but both he and his daughter make items overseas; he declares that Muslims- all Muslims are out to destroy America- yet millions live and work in America without issue.

 

This is the same man who refused to believe  President Obama was a native born American; he believes the law doesn't apply to him and has a history of lying; obstruction and obfuscation. The majority of Americans believe just the opposite of Donald Trump as well as the majority of the World. However, in Trump's mind everyone else is wrong and only he is right. He displays all the symptoms of a psychosis called- narcissistic personality disorder. The man shouldn't be the white House but in a White restraint locked in a mental ward.

[KBsinter]

For every person who believes, there is one who disbelieves............lol 

[Trouble]

If the world was really serious that man is the cause of climate change, then the logical conclusion is to start reducing earth's population. Unsustainable population growth is the real danger but there isn't any government that will address this issue.  

[ClutchClark]

19 hours ago, FreddieRoyle said:

I feel sick reading this. Nobody, nobody at all, has done greater and irrepairable damage to the the environment than Unilever and it's oil palm business. Millions upon millions of acres of rainforest burned and all animals habitats destroyed, the chemicals used and even child labor. And here the guy is, sugar wouldn't melt in his mouth, blaming our Donald. I used to regularly fly over Kalimantan 25 years ago, the scale of destruction was incredible. It's farcical, and I am not amused. 

Thanks for this post Freddie.

[stevenl]

14 hours ago, KBsinter said:

For every person who believes, there is one who disbelieves............lol 

Nonsense, maybe 40 years ago, but anybody who is up to date will realise men is responsible.