Notifications
Clear all
Topic starter
Trump pulling out .Wondering what people thing about this. Is it good. Is it bad??
and alana, can you refrain from name calling this time please
Posted : June 2, 2017 3:23 pm
Trump is still fulfilling his campaign promises. The `Paris Agreement was bad for the US and was illegally accepted by Obama.
The Paris Agreement is a treaty. As such it requires a two-thirds majority vote by the Senate in order to join. Obama never waited for Senate approval before joining. Another attempt to circumvent the US Constitution.
Besides that it was a bad deal. If we had met our burdensome financial and regulatory requirements under this treaty it was predicted to only make a two-tenths of a degree Celsius difference by 2100. Very expensive for a very small difference in temperature.
I hope that Trump follows up by getting us out of the UN. What a waste of money that is.
Posted : June 2, 2017 4:43 pm
The Paris Agreement (French: Accord de Paris) is an agreement within the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) dealing with greenhouse gas emissions mitigation, adaptation and finance starting in the year 2020.
Just in case you'd like to read the agreement -
http://unfccc.int/files/essential_background/convention/application/pdf/english_paris_agreement.pdf
http://unfccc.int/paris_agreement/items/9485.php
Obama used his executive power to sign on behalf of the US just as Trump decided to remove the US from the agreement using executive power.
The senate was not called on to ratify - because this was not a treaty but rather an broad-reaching agreement to ..... well, agree.... or at least that's how Obama saw it.
Let's burn some coal y'all and make Pittsburgh great again! And Youngstown!
BTW - the UN is a treaty organization, to which the US is a charter member. That one will take more than a blustering speech in the rose garden to pull out of.
Pulling out of the Accord de Paris was easy with great optics for Trump's base of support. Obama left the door wide open on this one.
Trump is still fulfilling his campaign promises. The `Paris Agreement was bad for the US and was illegally accepted by Obama.
The Paris Agreement is a treaty. As such it requires a two-thirds majority vote by the Senate in order to join. Obama never waited for Senate approval before joining. Another attempt to circumvent the US Constitution.
Besides that it was a bad deal. If we had met our burdensome financial and regulatory requirements under this treaty it was predicted to only make a two-tenths of a degree Celsius difference by 2100. Very expensive for a very small difference in temperature.
I hope that Trump follows up by getting us out of the UN. What a waste of money that is.
Posted : June 2, 2017 8:07 pm
A whole lot of bluster to make everyone feel good.
Posted : June 2, 2017 11:38 pm
However, the majority of people, the mayors, governor's and corporations in the U.S. are in disagreement with trump on this.
Gee, we join Syria and Nicaragua on pulling out!
You need to fact check trump's speech.
He's a habitual LIAR using alternative reality fallacies vs science and facts.
Ultimately, clean power will employ more people.
Ultimately, we actually have until 2020, long after trump gets impeached to pull out of the agreement.
Trump puts us back in the 20th century while everyone else moves on into the 21st.
But, ultimately, what's wrong with doing what we can to do the best to protect and save our planet and being prepared for the worst?
Are you against clean water, air, oceans and lands, protecting wildlife, our environment, our health, our lives?
Posted : June 3, 2017 8:44 pm
In case some of any " bigly" words aren't understandable, here's a link.
https://www.merriam-webster.com
Posted : June 3, 2017 11:18 pm
Obama used his executive power to sign on behalf of the US just as Trump decided to remove the US from the agreement using executive power.
The senate was not called on to ratify - because this was not a treaty but rather an broad-reaching agreement to ..... well, agree.... or at least that's how Obama saw it.
Obama might have thought that he was doing an end run around the constitution but many think that a document which commits the US to the many things that the Paris Agreement does is most certainly a treaty which requires Senate approval.
"Obama did an end-run around the two-thirds Senate vote required to ratify any treaty. Trump should return to the constitutional norm."
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/448156/paris-agreement-treaty-requiring-two-thirds-senate-vote
"President Trump is expected to announce today that the United States will not be party to the Paris agreement on climate change. What he should say is that the United States never properly joined the accord: It is a treaty that requires the advice and consent of the Senate. Instead, President Barack Obama choose to “adopt” it with an executive order last September."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2017/06/01/the-u-s-cant-quit-the-paris-climate-agreement-because-it-never-actually-joined/
"The Obama Administration's unilateral treatment of the Paris Agreement is particularly disquieting for two reasons: (1) the agreement has all the hallmarks of a treaty that should be submitted to the Senate for its advice and consent under Article II, Section 2, of the U.S. Constitution; and (2) the agreement contains "targets and timetables" for emissions reductions and, as such, the Administration's failure to submit the agreement to the Senate breaches a commitment made by the executive branch to the Senate in 1992 during the ratification process of the UNFCCC."
http://www.heritage.org/environment/report/the-paris-agreement-treaty-and-should-be-submitted-the-senate
"For all the applause for the Paris Climate Agreement, current treatment of the agreement is almost certainly a violation of the treaty clause of the U.S. Constitution.
Article II, Section 2, Clause 2 of the Constitution stipulates, “The President...shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur...” Most international agreements, especially ones sharing the magnitude of the Paris Accord, are treaties in the constitutional sense and should be presented to the Senate as such. President Obama’s decision to evade the Constitution by entering into the agreement, which will have major domestic impacts, and treat the accord as anything less than a treaty is an abrogation of his oath of office."
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/young-professionals-in-foreign-policy/why-the-paris-climate-agr_b_9914606.html
Posted : June 4, 2017 12:15 am
I'm happy for them and it appears that this president will allow them to make decisions as they see fit
I'm glad you came out against the constitution, fascist.
Posted : June 4, 2017 12:15 am
http://snip.ly/dr7t1#https://www.forbes.com/forbes/welcome/?toURL=https://www.forbes.com/sites/edfenergyexchange/2017/06/01/trump-just-walked-away-from-a-great-deal-on-climate/&refURL=&referrer=
Unfortunately it's not a link from an alternative reality news link.
Posted : June 4, 2017 3:13 am
I'm happy for them and it appears that this president will allow them to make decisions as they see fit
I'm glad you came out against the constitution, fascist.
I'm happy there'll be a full court press against dt's ongoing ignorance.
He's UNFIT and an embarrassment, to say the least
Posted : June 4, 2017 3:19 am
Also from Forbes.
"Even if you believe humankind contributes to climate change and global climate agreements are a good thing—I’m guilty on both counts—President Trump was right to announce America’s withdrawal from the 2015 Paris Agreement."
http://www.forbes.com/sites/gordonchang/2017/06/04/trump-ditching-paris-agreement-might-actually-save-the-planet/
Posted : June 4, 2017 3:31 am
From today's NYT - all about those Koch boys from Kansas again. This is a good read though quite thorough and lengthy. Not just a sound bite or meme.
Obama knew that there was zero chance of legislative action with Republicans captive to special interest money.
Posted : June 4, 2017 1:38 pm
"“Some scientists make ‘period, end of story’ claims,” writes biologist and naturalist Daniel Botkin in the Wall Street Journal, “that human-induced global warming definitely, absolutely either is or isn’t happening.”
These scientists, as well as the network of activists and cronies their science supports, I will refer to as the Climate Orthodoxy. These are the folks who urge, generally, that (a) global warming is occurring, (b) it is almost entirely man-made, and (c) it is occurring at a rate and severity that makes it an impending planetary emergency requiring political action. A Climate Agnostic questions at least one of those premises."
http://fee.org/articles/earth-day-22-ways-to-think-about-the-climate-change-debate/
Posted : June 4, 2017 2:40 pm
You know this isn't journalism don't you?
I don't care about global warming - I do care about reduction in the use of fossil fuels that are finite in sourcing. It is incumbent on all of us to encourage wind, solar and yet to be discovered technologies that will fuel our world well into the future.
"“Some scientists make ‘period, end of story’ claims,” writes biologist and naturalist Daniel Botkin in the Wall Street Journal, “that human-induced global warming definitely, absolutely either is or isn’t happening.”
These scientists, as well as the network of activists and cronies their science supports, I will refer to as the Climate Orthodoxy. These are the folks who urge, generally, that (a) global warming is occurring, (b) it is almost entirely man-made, and (c) it is occurring at a rate and severity that makes it an impending planetary emergency requiring political action. A Climate Agnostic questions at least one of those premises."
http://fee.org/articles/earth-day-22-ways-to-think-about-the-climate-change-debate/
Posted : June 4, 2017 3:47 pm
Also from Forbes:
Trump Just Walked Away From A Great Deal On Climate
Posted : June 4, 2017 5:57 pm
Americans Can Breathe a Huge Sigh of Relief! Trump Missed the Fine Print, He Doesn’t Have the Authority to Withdrawal from the Paris Agreement
JUNE 4, 2017
The New York Times swooped in to save the day and take all of the wind out of Donald’s sails. According to their report, the decision to withdraw from the Paris Agreement will be up to the president in 2021, and there’s no way Donald is making it to a second term — most of us hope he’s out before the end of his first term.
When Donald announced his decision to withdraw from the Paris Agreement, he told Americans that it’s a “bad deal.” This was his way of spinning the story to favor his decision. In reality, he wanted to make his oil giants friends and the rest of the GOP happy. He doesn’t care about Americans.
Read an excerpt from The New York Times below:
“But he [Trump] will stick to the withdrawal process laid out in the Paris agreement, which President Barack Obama joined and most of the world has already ratified. That could take nearly four years to complete, meaning a final decision would be up to the American voters in the next presidential election.”
Trump’s decision was nothing more than a show. He made the decision out of spite.
What is your reaction?
Posted : June 4, 2017 6:03 pm
You know this isn't journalism don't you?
I don't care about global warming - I do care about reduction in the use of fossil fuels that are finite in sourcing. It is incumbent on all of us to encourage wind, solar and yet to be discovered technologies that will fuel our world well into the future.
Please educate me as to why this story is not journalism?
The story was an opinion piece and raises many important questions.
Should unverified computer simulations of future weather be treated the same as actual observations. When the simulations fail, as they did with the global warming hiatus, does that invalidate the simulation or does a "quick fix" to the model make things good again?
According to Al Gore's Oscar winning and Nobel Prize winning film "An Inconvenient Truth" we had 10 years to act before we reached the point of no return. Chicken Little. BTW, the point of no return has already passed. According to Al the polar ice would have completely disappeared and the Polar Bears would be extinct.
I think that we agree that a move away from fossil fuels should be a goal. We are moving in that direction even without the Paris Climate Agreement. The idea that there is some tipping point that is imminently approaching that requires drastic government action is pure speculation. Where is the evidence? And I don't mean faulty, unproven computer models.
Even without the Paris Agreement the US is making huge strides toward moving away from fossil fuels. Why should the US have stricter goals than China and India? Why should the US and other "rich" countries be forced to transfer $100B a year to developing countries to fight climate change? Why is the US expected to pay over twice as much of that $100B as the next closest contributor? Are Obama/Kerry that poor negotiators? Of course China and India love the agreement, they get part of the $100B and pay nothing. They don't have to abide by the same emission standards as the US which gives them a huge competitive advantage.
I am not saying that the US should not be trying to reduce our use of fossil fuels, I am saying that it should be under our control and not under the control of the UN.
Posted : June 4, 2017 6:11 pm
What Is the Green Climate Fund and How Much Does the U.S. Actually Pay?
Posted : June 4, 2017 6:38 pm
FEE is a libertarian policy influencing organization that offers classes and seminars in order to support its agenda.
It's website is "just a publication" like Trump called Breitbart.
Who cares about Al Gore - or even that Trump has pulled the US from the Accord de Paris? I don't. Trump can only embarrass himself.
It's not about the rhetoric or the political posturing - it's about adapting new methods of producing renewable energy that is not damaging to the environment into the future.
The influence of climate is a long-term process.
You know this isn't journalism don't you?
I don't care about global warming - I do care about reduction in the use of fossil fuels that are finite in sourcing. It is incumbent on all of us to encourage wind, solar and yet to be discovered technologies that will fuel our world well into the future.
Please educate me as to why this story is not journalism?
The story was an opinion piece and raises many important questions.Should unverified computer simulations of future weather be treated the same as actual observations. When the simulations fail, as they did with the global warming hiatus, does that invalidate the simulation or does a "quick fix" to the model make things good again?
According to Al Gore's Oscar winning and Nobel Prize winning film "An Inconvenient Truth" we had 10 years to act before we reached the point of no return. Chicken Little. BTW, the point of no return has already passed. According to Al the polar ice would have completely disappeared and the Polar Bears would be extinct.
I think that we agree that a move away from fossil fuels should be a goal. We are moving in that direction even without the Paris Climate Agreement. The idea that there is some tipping point that is imminently approaching that requires drastic government action is pure speculation. Where is the evidence? And I don't mean faulty, unproven computer models.
Even without the Paris Agreement the US is making huge strides toward moving away from fossil fuels. Why should the US have stricter goals than China and India? Why should the US and other "rich" countries be forced to transfer $100B a year to developing countries to fight climate change? Why is the US expected to pay over twice as much of that $100B as the next closest contributor? Are Obama/Kerry that poor negotiators? Of course China and India love the agreement, they get part of the $100B and pay nothing. They don't have to abide by the same emission standards as the US which gives them a huge competitive advantage.
I am not saying that the US should not be trying to reduce our use of fossil fuels, I am saying that it should be under our control and not under the control of the UN.
Posted : June 4, 2017 6:59 pm
So attack the messenger, Vs the message. How open minded of you...
Libitarianism is your boogieman.
Posted : June 4, 2017 7:17 pm
FEE is a libertarian policy influencing organization that offers classes and seminars in order to support its agenda.
It's website is "just a publication" like Trump called Breitbart.
Who cares about Al Gore - or even that Trump has pulled the US from the Accord de Paris? I don't. Trump can only embarrass himself.
It's not about the rhetoric or the political posturing - it's about adapting new methods of producing renewable energy that is not damaging to the environment into the future.
The influence of climate is a long-term process.
I checked mediabiasfactcheck to get an idea of the tremendous bias at FEE. BTW, I am a Libertarian.
They rate FEE as having a Right-Center bias. Interestingly enough your news source, The New York Times is rated as having a Left-Center bias.
Both are rated as having a High level of factual reporting. They are equivalent! Opposite biases with the same level of factual reporting. Your bias is showing!
Why do countries like Russia, Saudia Arabia, Qatar, etc not participate in contributing to the Green Climate Fund? Funny since Saudia Arabia is the new chair. Why are growing economies like China and India recipients of those funds and do not have to meet the same emission requirements as everyone else for years to come.
The Paris Climate Agreement was the topic being discussed, there are better deals to be had.
Posted : June 4, 2017 7:42 pm
And what makes mediabiasfactcheck.com a legitimate fact checker? Because you did a web search and it came up?
Fake news and its constructs are insidious. FEE is not a news source - that doesn't make the information it provides illegitimate, particularly if you agree with it. It's not news.
Where did the $100 billion this and that data you quoted previously come from - Donald Trump? Aren't you suspicious of big round numbers? I've not seen information like that factually documented in any media source.
As far as I can find, the US has paid $1 billion to the GCF so far on a pledge of $3 billion. This amounts to about 30% of pledges.
Nothing wrong with being a libertarian. Nothing wrong with being a communist or a socialist either.
Again, pulling out of the Accord de Paris was just optics for Trump's base of support.
I checked mediabiasfactcheck to get an idea of the tremendous bias at FEE. BTW, I am a Libertarian.
They rate FEE as having a Right-Center bias. Interestingly enough your news source, The New York Times is rated as having a Left-Center bias.
Both are rated as having a High level of factual reporting. They are equivalent! Opposite biases with the same level of factual reporting. Your bias is showing!
Why do countries like Russia, Saudia Arabia, Qatar, etc not participate in contributing to the Green Climate Fund? Funny since Saudia Arabia is the new chair. Why are growing economies like China and India recipients of those funds and do not have to meet the same emission requirements as everyone else for years to come.
The Paris Climate Agreement was the topic being discussed, there are better deals to be had.
Posted : June 4, 2017 9:33 pm
Withdraw
Americans Can Breathe a Huge Sigh of Relief! Trump Missed the Fine Print, He Doesn’t Have the Authority to Withdrawal from the Paris Agreement
JUNE 4, 2017
The New York Times swooped in to save the day and take all of the wind out of Donald’s sails. According to their report, the decision to withdraw from the Paris Agreement will be up to the president in 2021, and there’s no way Donald is making it to a second term — most of us hope he’s out before the end of his first term.
When Donald announced his decision to withdraw from the Paris Agreement, he told Americans that it’s a “bad deal.” This was his way of spinning the story to favor his decision. In reality, he wanted to make his oil giants friends and the rest of the GOP happy. He doesn’t care about Americans.
Read an excerpt from The New York Times below:
“But he [Trump] will stick to the withdrawal process laid out in the Paris agreement, which President Barack Obama joined and most of the world has already ratified. That could take nearly four years to complete, meaning a final decision would be up to the American voters in the next presidential election.”
Trump’s decision was nothing more than a show. He made the decision out of spite.
What is your reaction?
Posted : June 5, 2017 2:00 am
And what makes mediabiasfactcheck.com a legitimate fact checker? Because you did a web search and it came up?
Fake news and its constructs are insidious. FEE is not a news source - that doesn't make the information it provides illegitimate, particularly if you agree with it. It's not news.
I give up! I guess I just don't have access to the list of approved and true news websites or the list of approved fact checkers.
Where did the $100 billion this and that data you quoted previously come from - Donald Trump? Aren't you suspicious of big round numbers? I've not seen information like that factually documented in any media source.
The $100B came from the GCF website. They expect donor nations who sign the Paris Agreement to be contributing $100B by 2020. GCF page here
You'll see it when you go there, it's in BOLD TYPE.
As far as I can find, the US has paid $1 billion to the GCF so far on a pledge of $3 billion. This amounts to about 30% of pledges.
That was the intermediate funding until 2020 when the big $$$ kick in. Mostly from the US. And we have only given $1B out of Obama's pledge because he did not go through congress and all funding comes from congress. He was able to divert funding that had been directed to other items, but only $1B. Obama danced around the constitution his whole presidency, time to put things back the way they were before Obama.
Posted : June 5, 2017 2:55 am
Page 1 / 2
Next
