Trump pulling out of Paris Climate Accord

[Markle]

Then you are doing exactly what I'm telling you. China is doing everything they can to improve their land, air, sea and the emissions output long before 2030. They signed with the accord to show the world that they are part of a good movement for the sake of one planet.
For you and Trump or anybody to say China is not doing anything till 2030 is pure idiotic.

And STOP cutting my post to fit your nonsense agenda.

Specifically what is China required to do prior to 2030. For that matter, what are they REQUIRED to do after 2030?

If they're doing something now, what purpose is the accord?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

This proves you and your buddy Todd don't know what in the world what this topic is all about.
Yes they are not choking with CO2 but the emissions are releasing to the atmosphere is dangerous to the earth. And Coal industry is one of the culprits.
China just shut down 103 of their coal plants is a good progress. At the same time they are going after their factories of air pollutants and smogs.

That's why you and the left is confused the Paris accord has nothing to do with pollution..it has to do with a transfer of wealth..

Transfer of wealth like what?

AGAIN let me repeat it again. Are you saying all the Americans 7 out of 10, Exxon, ConocoPhillips, BP, CEOs, Ivanka, Tillerson are all confused and all belong to the left? You are dumber than I thought.

Now answer those 2 questions. Before I waste anymore of my time with your stupidity.

Are you saying all the Americans 7 out of 10, Exxon, ConocoPhillips, BP, CEOs, Ivanka, Tillerson are all confused and all belong to the left?

Confused or going along with the idiocy for financial gain.

Wrong and NO answer Tod? but keep trying.

Right answer.
And Trump was right to kill this silly accord.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

He's free to waste city money on stupid ideas.
His constituents are free to vote him out when he does.

Waste money on stupid ideas. Like what?
This has been going before the mayor was elected so why would they not vote for him by saving the planet and creating more jobs.

Waste money on stupid ideas. Like what?

Like whatever "green energy" scheme that will cost millions and reduce CO2 emissions by dozens of pounds.

This has been going before the mayor was elected so why would they not vote for him by saving the planet

The mayor of Pittsburgh is going to save the planet?

Wrong answer Todd. Mayors only support clean air, reusable energy and using natural gas instead of coal. They do not have the power to reduce emissions because they mayors do not run fossil fuel industries like Exxon, ConocoPhillips or BP.
But mayors and governors came out in support of the Paris accord agreement. Telling Trump fuck you.
So let me ask you again. Waste money on stupid ideas------- Like what?
Try again.

Mayors only support clean air, reusable energy and using natural gas instead of coal.

That's just so awesome!
So what can this idiot actually do to clean the air?
Be specific.

But mayors and governors came out in support of the Paris accord agreement.

Their support and $5 can get you a yummy drink at Starbucks.

Wrong again Too. Keep trying.

So what can this idiot actually do to clean the air?
Be specific.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

This proves you and your buddy Todd don't know what in the world what this topic is all about.
Yes they are not choking with CO2 but the emissions are releasing to the atmosphere is dangerous to the earth. And Coal industry is one of the culprits.
China just shut down 103 of their coal plants is a good progress. At the same time they are going after their factories of air pollutants and smogs.

Yes they are not choking with CO2 but the emissions are releasing to the atmosphere is dangerous to the earth. And Coal industry is one of the culprits.

1. Yes, they should spend their money cleaning up their dangerous emissions and stop wasting it on CO2 reduction.
Of course, based on their non-commitments under the Paris accords, they already decided not to waste their money on CO2 reduction, eh?

China just shut down 103 of their coal plants is a good progress

2. They shut down 103 plants that were generating power? Are you sure?

1. Wrong answer try again.
2. Yes read the link I posted because I was in China when I heard that news.

Where can I find the list of plants that are no longer burning coal?

Wrong again. Keep trying.

No list? I'm shocked! LOL!

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Did you just get to this country or what?

Policies and politics changes with mood and vote of the people. We don't want some big-eared clown making policy that we can't get out of in the future. DumBama is gone, and Trump is trying to De-Bama the country.

When we voted the last several elections, we voted for change; not just change of the players, but change in the politics as well. We gave Republicans leadership of the Congress. We gave Republicans leadership of the Senate. We recently gave Republicans the White House. Why? Because we don't want Democrat policies anymore, and Democrat policies should not continue we we vote in Republican leadership.

Signing on to this Paris Accord gives Democrats the power over our environment no matter who is in leadership in the future. Trump rightfully stopped that. If the country wants change (as we do now) then we should not be bound by some stupid agreement that stops such change.

Yes, we are the leader of the world, and our leader is saying we act independently on this issue.

AGAIN------ Are you saying 7 out of 10 Americans, CEOs, Exxon, ConocoPhillips, BP, Ivanka, Tillerson etc etc etc. that support this accord------- Are all democrats?
Withdrawing from this accord didn't make us the leader but a laughing and embarrassing around the world.
So if we act independently why not part of group of a great movement?

So far you have not answer any of my questions Ray. Why is that?

Trump withdrew from the accord only because of coal industry but pure dumb and do not accept that the climate change is a hoax. So what are you trying to say Ray? Crap.

You are 100% the Republicans have house, congress and the White House------ So how are they doing? Let say replace and repeal Obamacare with the same garbage, total chaos, non stop self inflicting wounds, continue sucking Putin dick, Russian scandal, republicans investigating republicans, an embarrassment around the world, discombobulated toxic administration. What an accomplishment.

Did anyone came up in support of Trump from withdrawing from the accord? except maybe 8 GOPs.

1.First off, Commie Care is a disaster. Yesterday, Anthem Blue Shield announced they are pulling out of our state.

2. Secondly, you don't know how many Americans want to keep the Paris Accord. There was one poll on it and it wasn't a very large poll either. There was no explanation how the poll was conducted, and outside of political junkies like ourselves, most people don't know what the Paris Accord is. But people don't want to look stupid when asked a question, so they give any kind of answer.

3. Thirdly, you've been brainwashed by your puppet masters that all CEOs are conservative Republicans. There are a lot of liberals in the business world like Gates, Buffett, the late Steve Jobs.


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

1. There are no such thing as Commie Care. Try again.
2. You are right a lot of people don't have a clue about the Paris accord and the climate change. You are a proof of that. Trumpeters doesn't give a shit what Trump is talking about--------- they believe every lies whatever comes out from his mouth. That includes climate change. Sadly.
You are Wrong. Support of saving this planet here in US and globally is very high. Even Iranians will tell you that. There are several polls run who opposed and supported this accord. Update yourself Ray.

3. Is that include the fossil fuel industries CEOs that are culprits of releasing emissions supports the Paris Accord? Including Tillerson. Sad.
We don't have a puppet master Ray ------ Trump is a good example of a puppet. Sadly.

You don't have a faintest clue what you are talking about Ray.

Support of saving this planet here in US and globally is very high

It's so high among Greens that they'll support every expensive, unreliable source of energy, but won't support reliable nuclear energy.

Wrong answer. Try again and harder.

You support nuclear?
Or is that worse than CO2?

 

[Billy_Bob]

Then you are doing exactly what I'm telling you. China is doing everything they can to improve their land, air, sea and the emissions output long before 2030. They signed with the accord to show the world that they are part of a good movement for the sake of one planet.
For you and Trump or anybody to say China is not doing anything till 2030 is pure idiotic.

And STOP cutting my post to fit your nonsense agenda.

Specifically what is China required to do prior to 2030. For that matter, what are they REQUIRED to do after 2030?

If they're doing something now, what purpose is the accord?

NOTHING... this was all voluntary... so they don't have to do squat.. now or then...

 

[Avatar4321]

Obama did not take the agreement to congress because it was not a treaty. There were not obligations other than reporting progress and no budget impact. What Obama signed was an executive agreement, one of over 13,000 US presidents have signed without congress approval.

The president alone cannot commit our country to any spending or debt not approved by Congress. Just cannot happen, he does not have that authority. He can sign thousands of things so long as they don't involve our money, economy or defense.

This is lost on so many people.

When Jefferson, arguably the most intelligent president we've had, negotiated the Louisiana purchase there was a huge question whether he could do this.

Did he issue an executive order? No.

He had the Senate approve through ratification

Then he had the House pass the spending bill to pay for it.

If either had failed, half the country could be speaking French

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Pulling out of Paris is like your dad pulling out of your mother instead.

Nothing gets done

And staying in will only cost you a lot of money you don't have.

But we have a lot of money paying for his golf and travel expenses for his kids while they are doing private businesses. Nice. Lost income of businesses around Maralago while golfing.
We are also paying people trying to prove 3 to 5 millions illegal alien votes. That is just to name a few.

Oh please, you act as if Trump is the only one that ever left the White House to get some R and R. Do you stay home every weekend?

Nickel and dime talk trying to compare that to the billions this will cost us; on top of the billions already spent on this farce.

Obama Africa Trip To Cost Up To $100 Million: Report | HuffPost

This alone you don't have any clue what you are talking about Ray.
Your link about Obama's vacation is for total of 8 years. Trump vacation cost already $20 millions in first 100 days just by playing golf. That doesn't includes his sons trip overseas promoting Trump businesses.

Explain the billions on top of billions Ray.

Oh, so are you telling me that Obama only took one vacation in eight years? Care to wager on that?

And would you like me to dig up the costs of all of DumBama's golf outings? No matter where a President goes, it's going to cost a lot of money for equipment and security. There is nothing you can do about that. That's besides the fact a President never really takes a vacation, he just leaves the White House for a while.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

If you think we need some agreement with other countries to tell us what to do and how to do it, you're the stupid one. You want America to be like that guy with a good paying job that patrons a bar. Everybody runs up to him shaking his hand, giving him a hug, knowing he will buy them drinks all night long because he has the money.

Our country is 20 trillion dollars in debt. We are broke. Do you know what the word "broke" means? Broke means no money. Broke means in debt. Broke means failure. Why you leftists would choose failure all the time is beyond any reasonable persons ability to understand.

We can't afford to spend God knows how many billions (of money we don't have) on some stupid fairy tale like MMGW. You on the left always tell us to keep our religion in our church or at home, you should do the same with your beliefs. Don't involve our country in your stupid religion. If you want to lower your idiotic carbon footprint, buy a bike and ride it everywhere you go. Buy a windmill for your backyard. Take the bus everywhere you need to go. And in a hundred years from now, you can sit back and enjoy that .02% of cooler air.

God you people are dense.

In reality nobody is telling us anything Ray. We are the leader of this world not a dumb follower.
Taking about debt------- Since when you care about debt? Trump is wasting millions just by golfing, security and travel expenses of his family.
How about those small business that lost income every time he goes to Maralago?

Again are you saying that 7 out of 10 of Americans,CEOs, Conoco, Exxon etc etc etc blasting dumb Trump are all belong to the left are dense?
You are very wrong Ray.

Did you just get to this country or what?

Policies and politics changes with mood and vote of the people. We don't want some big-eared clown making policy that we can't get out of in the future. DumBama is gone, and Trump is trying to De-Bama the country.

When we voted the last several elections, we voted for change; not just change of the players, but change in the politics as well. We gave Republicans leadership of the Congress. We gave Republicans leadership of the Senate. We recently gave Republicans the White House. Why? Because we don't want Democrat policies anymore, and Democrat policies should not continue we we vote in Republican leadership.

Signing on to this Paris Accord gives Democrats the power over our environment no matter who is in leadership in the future. Trump rightfully stopped that. If the country wants change (as we do now) then we should not be bound by some stupid agreement that stops such change.

Yes, we are the leader of the world, and our leader is saying we act independently on this issue.

AGAIN------ Are you saying 7 out of 10 Americans, CEOs, Exxon, ConocoPhillips, BP, Ivanka, Tillerson etc etc etc. that support this accord------- Are all democrats?
Withdrawing from this accord didn't make us the leader but a laughing and embarrassing around the world.
So if we act independently why not part of group of a great movement?

So far you have not answer any of my questions Ray. Why is that?

Trump withdrew from the accord only because of coal industry but pure dumb and do not accept that the climate change is a hoax. So what are you trying to say Ray? Crap.

You are 100% the Republicans have house, congress and the White House------ So how are they doing? Let say replace and repeal Obamacare with the same garbage, total chaos, non stop self inflicting wounds, continue sucking Putin dick, Russian scandal, republicans investigating republicans, an embarrassment around the world, discombobulated toxic administration. What an accomplishment.

Did anyone came up in support of Trump from withdrawing from the accord? except maybe 8 GOPs.

1.First off, Commie Care is a disaster. Yesterday, Anthem Blue Shield announced they are pulling out of our state.

2. Secondly, you don't know how many Americans want to keep the Paris Accord. There was one poll on it and it wasn't a very large poll either. There was no explanation how the poll was conducted, and outside of political junkies like ourselves, most people don't know what the Paris Accord is. But people don't want to look stupid when asked a question, so they give any kind of answer.

3. Thirdly, you've been brainwashed by your puppet masters that all CEOs are conservative Republicans. There are a lot of liberals in the business world like Gates, Buffett, the late Steve Jobs.


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

1. There are no such thing as Commie Care. Try again.
2. You are right a lot of people don't have a clue about the Paris accord and the climate change. You are a proof of that. Trumpeters doesn't give a shit what Trump is talking about--------- they believe every lies whatever comes out from his mouth. That includes climate change. Sadly.
You are Wrong. Support of saving this planet here in US and globally is very high. Even Iranians will tell you that. There are several polls run who opposed and supported this accord. Update yourself Ray.

3. Is that include the fossil fuel industries CEOs that are culprits of releasing emissions supports the Paris Accord? Including Tillerson. Sad.
We don't have a puppet master Ray ------ Trump is a good example of a puppet. Sadly.

You don't have a faintest clue what you are talking about Ray.

Right, when you leftists are backed into a corner, just claim the person punching you has no idea what they are talking about.

Nobody is reacting on behalf of what Trump says or believes, we have always been against this global warming farce long before he even took an interest in politics. We've seen how much money it's cost us, we've seen the jobs leave the country, we've seen the ridiculous stories of what liberal states and cities have done.

As for your several polls claim, by all means, post them. Post the stories of how the questions were worded and where they took the poll samples from. I'll wait right here for them.

 

[Markle]

What petulant former President Barack Hussein Obama tried to commit the United States to give up. In addition to the $500 MILLION he has already turned over, the typical Progressive, spending other people's money, he said we'd fork over another $1.5 BILLION. That could build a section of the wall, couldn't it?

"Taxing CO2-emitting energy incentivizes businesses and consumers to change production processes, technologies, and behavior in a manner comparable to the Administration’s regulatory scheme. In fact, enacting a tax is much more economically efficient than a complex regulatory scheme; therefore, the Heritage analysis likely underestimates the impacts.[10] Further, to neutralize the analytical impacts of a tax’s income transfer, Heritage analysts model a scenario in which 100 percent of carbon-tax revenue is rebated to taxpayers, thereby only estimating the economic loss the tax would impose, known as the deadweight loss. By 2030, the costs would be:

• An average annual employment shortfall of nearly 300,000 jobs;
• A peak employment shortfall of more than 1 million jobs;
• A loss of more than $2.5 trillion (inflation-adjusted) in aggregate gross domestic product (GDP); and
• A total income loss of more than $7,000 (inflation-adjusted) per person.

The economic pain stemming from the EPA’s regulation would spread throughout the country, but some would be harmed more than others. Those disadvantaged the most by the EPA’s regulations are:

• Low-income and fixed-income families. A tax that increases energy prices would disproportionately eat into the income of the poorest American families. While the median family spends about 5 cents out of every dollar on energy costs, low-income families spend about 20 cents.[11] As the number of fixed-income seniors grows in the U.S., low-income seniors who depend largely on a fixed income are especially vulnerable.[12]
• Manufacturers. The shale revolution is driving energy-intensive industries to the United States. The Administration’s climate agenda would drive these industries away. America’s manufacturing base is hit particularly hard by higher energy prices. Over 500,000 of the jobs lost in the Heritage analysis are manufacturing jobs.
• The Midwest. The Heritage analysis of manufacturing-job losses by congressional district finds that districts in Wisconsin, Ohio, Indiana, Michigan, and Illinois would suffer most. In fact, 19 of the top 20 worst-off congressional districts from the Administration’s energy regulations are located in the Midwest region.[13]

The Climate and Environmental Benefits: None
The trade-off that Americans receive for higher electricity rates, unemployment, and lower levels of prosperity is not an appealing one. Even though electricity generation accounts for the single-largest source of carbon dioxide emissions in the United States, the estimated reduction is minuscule compared to global greenhouse gas emissions. Using the “Model for the Assessment of Greenhouse Gas Induced Climate Change,” developed with support from the EPA, climatologists Paul Knappenberger and Patrick Michaels estimate that the climate regulations will avert a meager –0.018 degree Celsius (C) of warming by the year 2100.[14]

In fact, the U.S. could cut its CO2 emissions 100 percent and it would not make a difference in global warming. Using the same climate sensitivity (the warming effect of a doubling of CO2 emissions) as the U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) assumes in its modeling, the world would only be 0.137 degree C cooler by 2100. Including 100 percent cuts from the entire industrialized world merely avert warming by 0.278 degree C by the turn of the century.[15]

Read more:
The Many Problems of the EPA’s Clean Power Plan and Climate Regulations: A Primer

 

[toobfreak]

So what's new in dealing with North Korea, ISIS and Syria? I don't see anything new.

You're kidding right?

* YOU DON'T SEE that in short order, we've gone from an invisible red line of total impotence in the sand that Obama's bluff was called on long ago leading to the slaughter of many thousands of lives to a missile attack that took out half of Assad's airforce, stopped the use of chemical weapons and made the world take serious Trump's resolve?

* YOU DON'T SEE that ISIS went from a free-running terror agency which had long since stopped taking America seriously to one day having the world's largest bomb dropped on its tunnel network killing many agents and slowing or stopping its tunnel system in and out of Afghanistan?

* And YOU DON'T SEE North Korea going from totally unchecked, to having China its closest ally now down its throat on one side working with us cutting off vital markets to our having a large military presence off shore ready to respond, meetings with Japan, a test of our strategist missile defense, to preparations to defending South Korea?

If you don't see any of that, you are indeed more than blind, you are willingly obtuse.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

No, I will not. But what I won't do is sign an agreement with all my neighbors that I'll do something about it. I don't need them to control my own environment.

Then you are doing exactly what I'm telling you. China is doing everything they can to improve their land, air, sea and the emissions output long before 2030. They signed with the accord to show the world that they are part of a good movement for the sake of one planet.
For you and Trump or anybody to say China is not doing anything till 2030 is pure idiotic.

And STOP cutting my post to fit your nonsense agenda.

I respond to only the comments that are relevant; that's why you can quote and highlight what you wish to reply to on USMB.

I don't know what China is doing now, but that's not the issue. The issue is that this phony agreement doesn't require China to do anything until 2030. If they are the leader in pollution, and they are doing so many wonderful things, why don't they start now and us in 2030?

We don't live in China Ray.

What does that have to do with it? If we did live in China, and China created the agreement, then at least it would make some sense. They made it to benefit themselves.

You keep digging yourself to a deeper of your nonsense lies Ray.

Like what benefits that China has to gain Ray? Prove it. Please.

Easy, they don't have to do shit until 2030. Why didn't we arrange for us to have that timeframe and have China start immediately?

 

[Billy_Bob]

Pulling out of Paris is like your dad pulling out of your mother instead.

Nothing gets done

And staying in will only cost you a lot of money you don't have.

But we have a lot of money paying for his golf and travel expenses for his kids while they are doing private businesses. Nice. Lost income of businesses around Maralago while golfing.
We are also paying people trying to prove 3 to 5 millions illegal alien votes. That is just to name a few.

Oh please, you act as if Trump is the only one that ever left the White House to get some R and R. Do you stay home every weekend?

Nickel and dime talk trying to compare that to the billions this will cost us; on top of the billions already spent on this farce.

Obama Africa Trip To Cost Up To $100 Million: Report | HuffPost

This alone you don't have any clue what you are talking about Ray.
Your link about Obama's vacation is for total of 8 years. Trump vacation cost already $20 millions in first 100 days just by playing golf. That doesn't includes his sons trip overseas promoting Trump businesses.

Explain the billions on top of billions Ray.

Oh, so are you telling me that Obama only took one vacation in eight years? Care to wager on that?

And would you like me to dig up the costs of all of DumBama's golf outings? No matter where a President goes, it's going to cost a lot of money for equipment and security. There is nothing you can do about that. That's besides the fact a President never really takes a vacation, he just leaves the White House for a while.

Obama and Michelle took separate vacations every few weeks all over the world... Trump goes to his summer home.. His remarks about trumps vacations are funny as hell.. They are pale in comparison to Obama's ....

 

[task0778]

What petulant former President Barack Hussein Obama tried to commit the United States to give up. In addition to the $500 MILLION he has already turned over, the typical Progressive, spending other people's money, he said we'd fork over another $1.5 BILLION. That could build a section of the wall, couldn't it?

"Taxing CO2-emitting energy incentivizes businesses and consumers to change production processes, technologies, and behavior in a manner comparable to the Administration’s regulatory scheme. In fact, enacting a tax is much more economically efficient than a complex regulatory scheme; therefore, the Heritage analysis likely underestimates the impacts.[10] Further, to neutralize the analytical impacts of a tax’s income transfer, Heritage analysts model a scenario in which 100 percent of carbon-tax revenue is rebated to taxpayers, thereby only estimating the economic loss the tax would impose, known as the deadweight loss. By 2030, the costs would be:

• An average annual employment shortfall of nearly 300,000 jobs;
• A peak employment shortfall of more than 1 million jobs;
• A loss of more than $2.5 trillion (inflation-adjusted) in aggregate gross domestic product (GDP); and
• A total income loss of more than $7,000 (inflation-adjusted) per person.

The economic pain stemming from the EPA’s regulation would spread throughout the country, but some would be harmed more than others. Those disadvantaged the most by the EPA’s regulations are:

• Low-income and fixed-income families. A tax that increases energy prices would disproportionately eat into the income of the poorest American families. While the median family spends about 5 cents out of every dollar on energy costs, low-income families spend about 20 cents.[11] As the number of fixed-income seniors grows in the U.S., low-income seniors who depend largely on a fixed income are especially vulnerable.[12]
• Manufacturers. The shale revolution is driving energy-intensive industries to the United States. The Administration’s climate agenda would drive these industries away. America’s manufacturing base is hit particularly hard by higher energy prices. Over 500,000 of the jobs lost in the Heritage analysis are manufacturing jobs.
• The Midwest. The Heritage analysis of manufacturing-job losses by congressional district finds that districts in Wisconsin, Ohio, Indiana, Michigan, and Illinois would suffer most. In fact, 19 of the top 20 worst-off congressional districts from the Administration’s energy regulations are located in the Midwest region.[13]

Read more:
The Many Problems of the EPA’s Clean Power Plan and Climate Regulations: A Primer

Actually, I believe Obama paid one billion dollars before he left office, with another committed 2 billion that I don't think Trump is going to fork over. Congress would not fund that commitment so Obama took it out of funds to pay for the ZIKA virus treatment and prevention program. Funny how much he cared about women's health except when it comes to climate change, or in reality wealth redistribution.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Unfortunately, not everyone was in on the joke. Determined to display “leadership,” President Obama made the classic mistake of the kid who hears everyone is going skinny-dipping, strips naked, plunges into the water, and then turns to find his dry and still-modest peers laughing from the shore as they run off with his clothes. While everyone else both literally and figuratively mailed in their commitments, the president pledged a dramatic reduction in U.S. emissions: 26 to 28 percent below their 2005 level by 2025. To further grease the skids of international diplomacy, he committed the United States to lead the transfer of $100 billion in annual “climate finance” from the developed world to the developing countries that are pledging nothing.

Read more at: Another Obama Legacy: Americans Will Pay Billions for a Useless Climate Agreement

You cannot prove your lies on the $380 billions and Germany $18 billions then double down by posting a worthless untrustworthy bias media national review. What a crap.

National Media: These media sources are moderately to strongly biased toward conservative causes through story selection and/or political affiliation. They may utilize strong loaded words (wording that attempts to influence an audience by using appeal to emotion or stereotypes), publish misleading reports and omit reporting of information that may damage conservative causes. Some sources in this category may be untrustworthy. See all Right Bias sources.

Right, because when you can't prove a story wrong, attack the source instead. Typical liberal strategy we see all the time.

So tell us, how much of our GDP would we have to pour into "green" under this agreement and how much money would that amount to? BTW, I never said anything about 380 billion or Germany.

What are you talking about dude?
Your buddy lied big time about the $380 billions and Germany's $18 billions. Then you supported his lies dude.

Then because of your desperation you posted a link from an asshole media. That's pathetic Ray.

No, that's not pathetic. What's pathetic is making a mistake and not admitting to it. That''s pathetic..........well.......I guess not for a leftist.

I never mentioned the$380 billions Ray your buddy did. You supported a big bullshit lie. That makes you a liar Ray. Sad very sad.

And what mistake did I make Ray? All my post are facts and I know what I'm talking about compared to you by keep blabbering nonsense all the way.

Oh, you didn't mention 380 billion and you didn't lie?

The best thing about telling the truth is never having to remember what you said.....like this just a few posts earlier:

So you cannot prove your $380 billions and Germany $18 billions. You lied and don't shit what you are taking about.
Why do you people lie? Like Trump.

You see, all you have to do is click the link that says "Click to expand" and it will bring up the entire conversation up to the last post. Now if you do that, you can clearly see you accused me of saying 380 billion when I didn't say shit about it. But of course you're not man enough to live up to your own mistakes. Typical lib.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

I already posted what they currently doing Ray including $360 billions allocated to reusable energy before 2020.
Again they are doing a very big move to improved their air, land and sea environment as we speak. That also risking going to war to extract natural gas by building man made island in Sprately Island near Philippines.

Again you really don't have a fucking clue what you are talking about the 2030 tolerance Ray. They are choking to death.
I asked you this question repeatedly. What made you think China is not doing anything today to improve their atmosphere?
I even gave you an example of your house dude.

So far you have not answered any of my questions Ray. Why is that?

So what. Do you know how much we've spent in the past on pollution? Here is an article from 1990, no less from New York Communist Times, and here are some highlights from back then:

The United States devotes 2 percent of the total value of its annual output of goods and services to control pollution and to clean up the environment, an analysis by the Environmental Protection Agency has found. That is about the same as the most environmentally concerned European countries spend, agency officials said.

The nation spends nearly half as much to control pollution as it does to clothe itself and roughly a third of what it allocates to the military, according to the study, which the agency said was the first attempt to calculate the cost of pollution-control measures. The study was prepared for Congress and is now circulating within the Government in draft form.

Agency officials say that except for the Netherlands, no other country is likely to devote a bigger share of wealth to clean up the environment in the foreseeable future. The Netherlands has declared its intention to spend 4 percent of its gross national product on pollution control. Questions About Priorities

The study found that total costs rose to $100 billion in 1990 from $85 billion in 1987 and $26 billion in 1972 in constant 1986 dollars. By 2000, according to the analysis, the cost could rise to anywhere from $148 billion to $160 billion. Big Emission Reductions.

2% OF G.N.P. SPENT BY U.S. ON CLEANUP

Now if you read the article, it goes on to talk about the negative impacts on businesses. And mind you, in 1990, it was a Democrat led Congress that created the report.

So don't tell me about what China plans to do and how we are the bad guy. They have a hell of a lot of catching up to do to come close to what we've spent, and they are five times our population.

 

[Markle]

You really aren't too bright. Too many diesel fumes likely cause.

You want us to reduce emissions (something your orange buddy claims is killing the US economy) while Africa increases theirs? Do you think it might be more efficient for the developed nations, that put us over the 400ppm mark, to help ease emissions in developing countries?

"In a rather testy exchange during a House hearing, Rep. Dana Rohrabacher tore into Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Gina McCarthy for not knowing what percentage of the atmosphere was made up of carbon dioxide.

“What percentage of the atmosphere is CO2?” the California Republican asked during a Thursday hearing.

“I don’t have that calculation for you, sir,” McCarthy replied. “I don’t make those guesses, sir.”

“You’re head of the EPA and you did not know,” Rohrabacher shot back in astonishment, “and now you are basing policies that impact dramatically on the American people and you didn’t know what the content of CO2 in the atmosphere was… the justification for the very policies you’re talking about.”

"The Earth’s atmosphere is 78 percent nitrogen, 21 percent oxygen and 1 percent other gases, including about 0.04 percent carbon dioxide. And yes, Earth’s CO2 concentration stood at 400 parts per million in May 2015."

Read more:
Lawmaker Slams EPA Chief For Not Knowing CO2’s Percentage Of The Atmosphere

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

The name of the former president is Obama NOT DUMBAMA and the current president is Trump.
Where did I lie? I NEVER in my post just pure facts and reality. Get your facts right.
And you are a good example of a deplorable American.
From the beginning of this thread you posted and supported nothing but baseless or philosophical.

Oh yes, you lie, you lie all the time. You use the word "racism" when nothing even was discussed about race. It's a typical liberal reaction to a losing argument for a liberal. When you have no real defense in an argument, call somebody a racist.

You didn't do that with just me, but several people here. You've been trained like a monkey by your leaders.

REALLY? I mean really? Do you want me to bring up other threads? Didn't you said it's your job to offend people because of your racism?

Name of ex president is Obama NOT DumBama.

Go ahead, bring up those posts of mine. In other words, I've said nothing here about race, and you just decided to rely on your liberal default of calling other people racist. And I defy you to bring up anything in regards to me saying "It's my job to offend people because I'm a racist." Go ahead, make my day...

 

[Markle]

I didn't lie. Katrina was a Cat 5 in the Gulf before it hit land. I never said Katrina was a Cat 5 when it hit land; you took exception to something I didn't say. It WAS a Cat 5 storm. We were talking about intensity. I did not know the argument was limited to over land masses only.

Sweet back peddling while fiddling with your fiddle!

 

[Markle]

Don't waste your time. I have shown repeatedly in this thread how that statement is wrong. This is a TREATY.
Or should I say WAS

It has never been called a treaty. Check our constitution and see who has to approve a treaty and how.