Trump says U.S. to withdraw from Paris climate accord

[stevenl]

1 minute ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Quite right too.

Isn't it funny that to listen to the "world's leaders" without America they can't do anything. It's like the poor little darlings need "mummy America" to hold their hands to do anything. They should grow some and do it on their own.

Perhaps they were counting on the US to provide lots of lovely money for them to play with.

Totally wrong, the world does not need the US. Other countries will go ahead, and get way ahead of the US.

 

The US needs the world though.

[LannaGuy]

Terrible decision based on ego and our planet suffers - what a moron

[darksidedog]

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.

[thaibeachlovers]

1 minute ago, stevenl said:

Totally wrong, the world does not need the US. Other countries will go ahead, and get way ahead of the US.

 

The US needs the world though.

If they don't need the US why are they making such a fuss? They can just get on with taxing their citizens more all by themselves.

[tomacht8]

Climate back and forth. This is the first time all countries of the world sit in a boat and try to solve a problem together. And then Trump comes and shows everyone the middle finger.

 

A real harm to the image of US.

 

[Usernames]

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.

[Gary A]

The earth's climate has been changing for thousands of years and continues to change regardless of what man decides to do. I don't doubt climate change but I do doubt that man has anything to do with it. Pollution is killing many thousands of people but the big problem is NOT CO2. Even Thailand has jumped on the money wagon blaming the problem on CO2. That money would  have much more benefit fighting the poisoning of our water and atmosphere.

[Usernames]

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!

[stevenl]

6 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

If they don't need the US why are they making such a fuss? They can just get on with taxing their citizens more all by themselves.

I would not call it making a fuss, I think people just don't understand how somebody, a leader of the USA, can make a stupid decision like this.

 

The reasons are simple though, as was to be expected, as pointed out earlier: 1. because Obama signed it, 2. because it is international; and 3. because it is science based.

[LannaGuy]

5 minutes ago, Gary A said:

The earth's climate has been changing for thousands of years and continues to change regardless of what man decides to do. I don't doubt climate change but I do doubt that man has anything to do with it. Pollution is killing many thousands of people but the big problem is NOT CO2. Even Thailand has jumped on the money wagon blaming the problem on CO2. That money would  have much more benefit fighting the poisoning of our water and atmosphere.

Nonsense not backed by Science it's obvious to 99% of us that humans laying waste to our planet has caused terrible climatic changes in the ecosphere. Acid rain, warming, increasing desserts, cutting rainforests etc. etc. etc.

Edited June 2, 2017 by LannaGuy

[darksidedog]

Just now, Usernames said:

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!

Given America runs a massive trade deficit with the rest of the world, tariff walls would be a fantastic way to push inflation through the roof and push an even greater percentage of the people into poverty. 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. Any other smart ideas to destroy America even faster?

[doctormann]

1 minute ago, Gary A said:

The earth's climate has been changing for thousands of years and continues to change regardless of what man decides to do. I don't doubt climate change but I do doubt that man has anything to do with it. Pollution is killing many thousands of people but the big problem is NOT CO2. Even Thailand has jumped on the money wagon blaming the problem on CO2. That money would  have much more benefit fighting the poisoning of our water and atmosphere.

 

Absolutely correct.

 

While I have no problem whatsoever in trying to reduce global pollution, let's not delude ourselves that the Paris accord, or any other attempt to reduce carbon emissions, will have any discernible effect on the climate because it won't!

 

If we are really worried about CO2 levels then we should maybe plant more trees - they love CO2 - and stop cutting down the rain forests.

 

[Usernames]

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?

[LannaGuy]

3 minutes ago, doctormann said:

 

Absolutely correct.

 

While I have no problem whatsoever in trying to reduce global pollution, let's not delude ourselves that the Paris accord, or any other attempt to reduce carbon emissions, will have any discernible effect on the climate because it won't!

 

If we are really worried about CO2 levels then we should maybe plant more trees - they love CO2 - and stop cutting down the rain forests.

 

Last part totally agree but not the first as the Paris Agreement was a RECOGNITION of the problems and a start to do something and now bonzo Trump thinks he's a scientist.  What a fool he can be.

[tomacht8]

Ecological groups in the world discuss now a boycott of US goods.

 

No Heinz ketchup.

No Nike shoes.

No Esso fuel.

No Coca Cola.

No Mc Donalds.

No Appel Phones.

No US Whiskey.

No Harley Motorbikes.

 

 

 

[Gary A]

3 minutes ago, LannaGuy said:

Nonsense not backed by Science it's obvious to 99% of us that humans laying waste to our planet has caused terrible climatic changes in the ecosphere. Acid rain, warming, dissertation, cutting rainforests etc. etc. etc.

 

What causes acid rain? It certainly isn't CO2. The rain forests need massive amounts of CO2 and yes, man is plundering and destroying that valuable resource. The only good thing about destroying the rainforests is that food crops will have higher yields because of increased CO2. It will take longer for the over populated earth to starve to death. Having clean water is the most important thing and nobody's paying any attention to this most dangerous problem. The air we breathe is also being rapidly poisoned. These greedy politicians are concentrated on making as much money as possible. This is the biggest scam man has ever invented.

[Scott]

We have people who probably can fill you in on the science, but a big cause is the burning of high sulfur fossil fuels, such as coal.   When it burns it turns to sulfur dioxide and eventually to sulfuric acid.  

[Grouse]

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.

[maewang99]

the Washington Post's page one is also pointing out the Paris agreement wouldn't have done it.....

which no one ever contended, not even Christiana Figueres.

 

"Even Before Trump's Decision... the deal's target would be hard to hit".

 

this is what always makes everything easier to deal with. reality.

the rest is nonsense on top of nonsense.

 

[Usernames]

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

Edited June 2, 2017 by Usernames

[JHolmesJr]

another election promise kept by Mr Trump…..how many crooked politicians can claim that?

[Srikcir]

7 hours ago, webfact said:

"I was elected to represent the citizens of Pittsburgh

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.

[Andaman Al]

1 minute ago, JHolmesJr said:

another election promise kept by Mr Trump…..how many crooked politicians can claim that?

Well there was a certain Lady not so long ago in SE Asia that tried to keep her ridiculous promises and in doing so came close to bankrupting the country. (and 30 Billion dollars just 'disappeared').

[Usernames]

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.

[Andaman Al]

I remembered watching this video about 10 years ago and have at last found it. This is quite a compelling argument for acting in favour of taking action on climate change. For anyone with at least half a brain, please watch this and THEN consider Trumps actions. If only Trump would have spent 9 mins watching this.

 

 

[Thakkar]

Kurt Eichenwald (‪@kurteichenwald‬)

2/6/17, 07:35

We now live in a country where the untrained think they understand science, history & medicine better than scientists, historians & doctors.

[Jack100]

Mmmm - not sure I believe  all this climate stuff  but think

[AlexRich]

4 hours ago, canuckamuck said:

And with no evidence that the change would even occur or that it would even be beneficial to effect that change.

History proves warming is better than cooling.

 

History also proves that "there's one born every minute" ... lucky you!

 

[darksidedog]

19 minutes ago, JHolmesJr said:

another election promise kept by Mr Trump…..how many crooked politicians can claim that?

Surprising then that he has set historical lows in approval ratings. And not just by a little bit either. He holds the record for the first president since polls began to score under 50% for the first three months in office. 41% to be precise. Kennedy had 74% at the same juncture and even Clinton, who was languishing in last place with 55% is a long way in front. Given the impact this latest stupidity will do to America, I suspect I am not alone in watching those numbers slide to further, and embarrassing new lows.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/208778/trump-job-approval-first-quarter-lowest-points.aspx?g_source=Politics&g_medium=newsfeed&g_campaign=tiles

Edited June 2, 2017 by darksidedog

[AlexRich]

7 minutes ago, Andaman Al said:

I remembered watching this video about 10 years ago and have at last found it. This is quite a compelling argument for acting in favour of taking action on climate change. For anyone with at least half a brain, please watch this and THEN consider Trumps actions. If only Trump would have spent 9 mins watching this.

 

 

 

Trump would only have spent 9 minutes watching it if it were in Cartoon form!