Trump pulling out of Paris Climate Accord

[OldLady]

To get every country* in the world to agree that we should ALL clean up the environment for the planet's sake was a big accomplishment. The U.S., the second largest polluter on the planet actually spearheaded the effort. The countries with economies large enough agreed to help out the countries that are still heating by campfire. This is the spirit of cooperation rarely if ever seen in the history of this planet before.
Then, along comes Trump and says "I don't want to pay anything toward this" even though we are the #2 polluter--who cares? It's cheaper to pollute. Our coal miners need jobs. And just like that, we're out.

And YOU are PROUD of that?

*except Nicaragua and Syria And now US

The Paris Accords will do next to nothing to clean up the environment, something like .2 of a degree IF every nation does what they said they would. Do you really think that would happen, all these countries are doing is making promises they have no intention of keeping.

The reality is that this isn't about climate change, it's about wealth redistribution. Ostensibly between the rich countries (mostly us) and every one else. And would those under developed countries get all that money? I don't think so, most of it would go to the bureaucrats in the UN and the corrupt national leaders in those under developed countries. And they admit it too:

UN climate chief Christina Figueres: the Paris Accords organizers’ ultimate goal was “to change the [capitalist] economic development model that has been reigning for at least 150 years, since the Industrial Revolution.”

Another U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) official, Ottmar Edenhofer confirmed the travesty of global warming treaties, “ . . . one has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. Instead, climate change policy is about how we redistribute de facto the world’s wealth . . . ”

I believe I heard the ultimate goal was to slow anticipated global warming by 2 degrees. Not .2 degrees.
Usually when there is a dispute over policy, somewhere in the middle is about right. But in this case, it is as if the two sides are arguing from completely different realities. It is impossible to know what is correct, except that DAMMITALL, cleaning up the environment is a good thing and joining the world in that is as well. Now the rest of the world will be snubbing us when we try to deal with our solar panels and wind turbines and even our coal. Remember the Little Red Hen? If you don't work, you don't eat.

I believe I heard the ultimate goal was to slow anticipated global warming by 2 degrees. Not .2 degrees.

The maximum expected benefit would be 0.2 degrees, at the cost of trillions. Bad idea.

It is impossible to know what is correct, except that DAMMITALL, cleaning up the environment is a good thing

This wasted money would actual clean the environment. That's why it's so stupid.

The maximum expected benefit would be 0.2 degrees, at the cost of trillions. Bad idea.
Alright, but I need that link, please.

Alright, but I need that link, please

Sorry, I was way off.

The climate impact of all Paris INDC promises is minuscule: if we measure the impact of every nation fulfilling every promise by 2030, the total temperature reduction will be 0.048°C (0.086°F) by 2100.

• Even if we assume that these promises would be extended for another 70 years, there is still little impact: if every nation fulfills every promise by 2030, and continues to fulfill these promises faithfully until the end of the century, and there is no ‘CO₂ leakage’ to non-committed nations, the entirety of the Paris promises will reduce temperature rises by just 0.17°C (0.306°F) by 2100.

Paris climate promises will reduce temperatures by just 0.05°C in 2100 (Press release) | Bjorn Lomborg

Thank you. But the Agreement calls for countries to submit their specific plans by 2020. How did he do these projections when the countries haven't submitted their plans yet?

 

[OldLady]

It's now crystal clear DT is comfortable both ceding the moral high ground and the economic upper hand to countries like China, and endangering the future for all of us.

You think CHINA has the moral high ground when it comes to air pollution? CHINA? Have you lost your freakin' mind? These guys have been opening up coal fired energy plants for years and will continue to do so right up to 2030 and probably beyond that if it's in their best interests to do so. Do you think think they or any other freakin' country that signed the Paris Agreement will spend their money to reduce emissions? OUR money? Oh yeah. THEIR money? Don't be ridiculous.

Have YOU lost YOURS? That China agreed to at least take some steps? They've cancelled 105 of the coal burning plants they had planned. It's a start. And they're revving up the green tech. What is ridiculous is that we are sulking about China being a big polluter. We are second. Don't forget that.

You do realize we were the only one on the hook financially for the deal, if you can call it that. This country is broke we can't afford deals that give nothing in return.

Since when has the U.S. become the entire and only country in "the developed world"?
There is such a lot of kerfluffle over the withdrawal right now that googling the question of who pays is a pain in the patooley. But believe me you've got your facts wrong if you believe we are the only ones who agreed to pay. Trump doesn't want to. You don't want to. Okay, I hear that. But we are not the ONLY ones on the hook.

$100 Billion
"To help developing countries switch from fossil fuels to greener sources of energy and adapt to the effects of climate change, the developed world will provide $100 billion a year," NPR's Christopher Joyce reports.

But that amount is identified as a "floor," not a ceiling.

"Developed countries won inclusion of language that would up the ante in subsequent years," he explains, "so that financial aid will keep ramping up over time."
So What Exactly Is In The Paris Climate Accord?

Since when have these other countries actually follow through on their commitments?

Okay, now you're getting silly. If that's what you're going to base your argument on, I'm done talking to you.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Trump pulling out of the Paris Climate Accord is like you changing lanes on the highway to avoid a collision you didn't cause but would get the bill for!

To get every country* in the world to agree that we should ALL clean up the environment for the planet's sake was a big accomplishment. The U.S., the second largest polluter on the planet actually spearheaded the effort. The countries with economies large enough agreed to help out the countries that are still heating by campfire. This is the spirit of cooperation rarely if ever seen in the history of this planet before.
Then, along comes Trump and says "I don't want to pay anything toward this" even though we are the #2 polluter--who cares? It's cheaper to pollute. Our coal miners need jobs. And just like that, we're out.

And YOU are PROUD of that?

*except Nicaragua and Syria And now US

The U.S., the second largest polluter on the planet actually spearheaded the effort.

We emit more than 4 times CO2 per capita as Mexico.
The quickest, largest reduction we could make would be sending every illegal alien
back to their home country.

Do it for the planet.

Ha ha? Joke, right?

Illegal aliens emitting too much CO2 is not a joke.
Send them home.

Is it all the gas from rice and beans or what?

Nope, just CO2.

 

[Rustic]

You think CHINA has the moral high ground when it comes to air pollution? CHINA? Have you lost your freakin' mind? These guys have been opening up coal fired energy plants for years and will continue to do so right up to 2030 and probably beyond that if it's in their best interests to do so. Do you think think they or any other freakin' country that signed the Paris Agreement will spend their money to reduce emissions? OUR money? Oh yeah. THEIR money? Don't be ridiculous.

Have YOU lost YOURS? That China agreed to at least take some steps? They've cancelled 105 of the coal burning plants they had planned. It's a start. And they're revving up the green tech. What is ridiculous is that we are sulking about China being a big polluter. We are second. Don't forget that.

You do realize we were the only one on the hook financially for the deal, if you can call it that. This country is broke we can't afford deals that give nothing in return.

Since when has the U.S. become the entire and only country in "the developed world"?
There is such a lot of kerfluffle over the withdrawal right now that googling the question of who pays is a pain in the patooley. But believe me you've got your facts wrong if you believe we are the only ones who agreed to pay. Trump doesn't want to. You don't want to. Okay, I hear that. But we are not the ONLY ones on the hook.

$100 Billion
"To help developing countries switch from fossil fuels to greener sources of energy and adapt to the effects of climate change, the developed world will provide $100 billion a year," NPR's Christopher Joyce reports.

But that amount is identified as a "floor," not a ceiling.

"Developed countries won inclusion of language that would up the ante in subsequent years," he explains, "so that financial aid will keep ramping up over time."
So What Exactly Is In The Paris Climate Accord?

Since when have these other countries actually follow through on their commitments?

Okay, now you're getting silly. If that's what you're going to base your argument on, I'm done talking to you.

NATO funding: How it works and who pays what

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Lets do some math that our liberal fascist climate change fear mongers have refused to do...

The Paris accord requires the US to submit 0.8% of its GDP, of the previous year, to the UN Climate Change control body..

Using this graph of GDP for 2015.. we had 112.1 + 113.2 +113.8 +114.2= 453.3 Trillion dollars in that period. Our payment to the UN is then calculated 453.3 * 0.8% =$362.64 billion dollars.
Last years total was 482.2... making our payment amount about 380 billion..

Quite the scam wouldn't you say?

The US federal government budget is ABOUT 4.1 TRILLION DOLLARS..

Using this graph of GDP for 2015.. we had 112.1 + 113.2 +113.8 +114.2= 453.3 Trillion dollars in that period.

Not even close. Read the chart key, it says 2009=100.
That means Q42015 GDP was about 14% higher than 2009.

453.3 * 0.8% =$362.64 billion dollars.

$453.3 trillion times 0.8% is $3.6264 TRILLION.

View attachment 130623




$19 trillion GDP times 0.008 = $152 billion.

Well... That's embarrassing... leaving the decimal points on...

That's what happens when I multi-task...

Where did you come up with lower GDP numbers?

The Fed. Or anywhere you care to look. $19 trillion.

 

[Rustic]

The Paris Accords will do next to nothing to clean up the environment, something like .2 of a degree IF every nation does what they said they would. Do you really think that would happen, all these countries are doing is making promises they have no intention of keeping.

The reality is that this isn't about climate change, it's about wealth redistribution. Ostensibly between the rich countries (mostly us) and every one else. And would those under developed countries get all that money? I don't think so, most of it would go to the bureaucrats in the UN and the corrupt national leaders in those under developed countries. And they admit it too:

UN climate chief Christina Figueres: the Paris Accords organizers’ ultimate goal was “to change the [capitalist] economic development model that has been reigning for at least 150 years, since the Industrial Revolution.”

Another U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) official, Ottmar Edenhofer confirmed the travesty of global warming treaties, “ . . . one has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. Instead, climate change policy is about how we redistribute de facto the world’s wealth . . . ”

I believe I heard the ultimate goal was to slow anticipated global warming by 2 degrees. Not .2 degrees.
Usually when there is a dispute over policy, somewhere in the middle is about right. But in this case, it is as if the two sides are arguing from completely different realities. It is impossible to know what is correct, except that DAMMITALL, cleaning up the environment is a good thing and joining the world in that is as well. Now the rest of the world will be snubbing us when we try to deal with our solar panels and wind turbines and even our coal. Remember the Little Red Hen? If you don't work, you don't eat.

I believe I heard the ultimate goal was to slow anticipated global warming by 2 degrees. Not .2 degrees.

The maximum expected benefit would be 0.2 degrees, at the cost of trillions. Bad idea.

It is impossible to know what is correct, except that DAMMITALL, cleaning up the environment is a good thing

This wasted money would actual clean the environment. That's why it's so stupid.

The maximum expected benefit would be 0.2 degrees, at the cost of trillions. Bad idea.
Alright, but I need that link, please.

Alright, but I need that link, please

Sorry, I was way off.

The climate impact of all Paris INDC promises is minuscule: if we measure the impact of every nation fulfilling every promise by 2030, the total temperature reduction will be 0.048°C (0.086°F) by 2100.

• Even if we assume that these promises would be extended for another 70 years, there is still little impact: if every nation fulfills every promise by 2030, and continues to fulfill these promises faithfully until the end of the century, and there is no ‘CO₂ leakage’ to non-committed nations, the entirety of the Paris promises will reduce temperature rises by just 0.17°C (0.306°F) by 2100.

Paris climate promises will reduce temperatures by just 0.05°C in 2100 (Press release) | Bjorn Lomborg

Thank you. But the Agreement calls for countries to submit their specific plans by 2020. How did he do these projections when the countries haven't submitted their plans yet?

The climate accord would destroy small businesses in this country… Fact

 

[oreo]

The Paris Accords will do next to nothing to clean up the environment, something like .2 of a degree IF every nation does what they said they would. Do you really think that would happen, all these countries are doing is making promises they have no intention of keeping.

The reality is that this isn't about climate change, it's about wealth redistribution. Ostensibly between the rich countries (mostly us) and every one else. And would those under developed countries get all that money? I don't think so, most of it would go to the bureaucrats in the UN and the corrupt national leaders in those under developed countries. And they admit it too:

UN climate chief Christina Figueres: the Paris Accords organizers’ ultimate goal was “to change the [capitalist] economic development model that has been reigning for at least 150 years, since the Industrial Revolution.”

Another U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) official, Ottmar Edenhofer confirmed the travesty of global warming treaties, “ . . . one has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. Instead, climate change policy is about how we redistribute de facto the world’s wealth . . . ”

I believe I heard the ultimate goal was to slow anticipated global warming by 2 degrees. Not .2 degrees.
Usually when there is a dispute over policy, somewhere in the middle is about right. But in this case, it is as if the two sides are arguing from completely different realities. It is impossible to know what is correct, except that DAMMITALL, cleaning up the environment is a good thing and joining the world in that is as well. Now the rest of the world will be snubbing us when we try to deal with our solar panels and wind turbines and even our coal. Remember the Little Red Hen? If you don't work, you don't eat.

I believe I heard the ultimate goal was to slow anticipated global warming by 2 degrees. Not .2 degrees.

The maximum expected benefit would be 0.2 degrees, at the cost of trillions. Bad idea.

It is impossible to know what is correct, except that DAMMITALL, cleaning up the environment is a good thing

This wasted money would actual clean the environment. That's why it's so stupid.

The maximum expected benefit would be 0.2 degrees, at the cost of trillions. Bad idea.
Alright, but I need that link, please.

Alright, but I need that link, please

Sorry, I was way off.

The climate impact of all Paris INDC promises is minuscule: if we measure the impact of every nation fulfilling every promise by 2030, the total temperature reduction will be 0.048°C (0.086°F) by 2100.

• Even if we assume that these promises would be extended for another 70 years, there is still little impact: if every nation fulfills every promise by 2030, and continues to fulfill these promises faithfully until the end of the century, and there is no ‘CO₂ leakage’ to non-committed nations, the entirety of the Paris promises will reduce temperature rises by just 0.17°C (0.306°F) by 2100.

Paris climate promises will reduce temperatures by just 0.05°C in 2100 (Press release) | Bjorn Lomborg

Thank you. But the Agreement calls for countries to submit their specific plans by 2020. How did he do these projections when the countries haven't submitted their plans yet?

They're already doing it. They didn't wait for 2020 to roll around and come up with a plan.

Here is CHINA TODAY:

Even the U.S. military has jumped on board
By Air, Land and Sea, the Military is Going Green to Save Lives and Money | HuffPost

Navy Deploys ‘Great Green Fleet’

And then we got this:

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

The Paris Accords will do next to nothing to clean up the environment, something like .2 of a degree IF every nation does what they said they would. Do you really think that would happen, all these countries are doing is making promises they have no intention of keeping.

The reality is that this isn't about climate change, it's about wealth redistribution. Ostensibly between the rich countries (mostly us) and every one else. And would those under developed countries get all that money? I don't think so, most of it would go to the bureaucrats in the UN and the corrupt national leaders in those under developed countries. And they admit it too:

UN climate chief Christina Figueres: the Paris Accords organizers’ ultimate goal was “to change the [capitalist] economic development model that has been reigning for at least 150 years, since the Industrial Revolution.”

Another U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) official, Ottmar Edenhofer confirmed the travesty of global warming treaties, “ . . . one has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. Instead, climate change policy is about how we redistribute de facto the world’s wealth . . . ”

I believe I heard the ultimate goal was to slow anticipated global warming by 2 degrees. Not .2 degrees.
Usually when there is a dispute over policy, somewhere in the middle is about right. But in this case, it is as if the two sides are arguing from completely different realities. It is impossible to know what is correct, except that DAMMITALL, cleaning up the environment is a good thing and joining the world in that is as well. Now the rest of the world will be snubbing us when we try to deal with our solar panels and wind turbines and even our coal. Remember the Little Red Hen? If you don't work, you don't eat.

I believe I heard the ultimate goal was to slow anticipated global warming by 2 degrees. Not .2 degrees.

The maximum expected benefit would be 0.2 degrees, at the cost of trillions. Bad idea.

It is impossible to know what is correct, except that DAMMITALL, cleaning up the environment is a good thing

This wasted money would actual clean the environment. That's why it's so stupid.

The maximum expected benefit would be 0.2 degrees, at the cost of trillions. Bad idea.
Alright, but I need that link, please.

Alright, but I need that link, please

Sorry, I was way off.

The climate impact of all Paris INDC promises is minuscule: if we measure the impact of every nation fulfilling every promise by 2030, the total temperature reduction will be 0.048°C (0.086°F) by 2100.

• Even if we assume that these promises would be extended for another 70 years, there is still little impact: if every nation fulfills every promise by 2030, and continues to fulfill these promises faithfully until the end of the century, and there is no ‘CO₂ leakage’ to non-committed nations, the entirety of the Paris promises will reduce temperature rises by just 0.17°C (0.306°F) by 2100.

Paris climate promises will reduce temperatures by just 0.05°C in 2100 (Press release) | Bjorn Lomborg

Thank you. But the Agreement calls for countries to submit their specific plans by 2020. How did he do these projections when the countries haven't submitted their plans yet?

They've already made promises of CO2 reductions.
What do the specific paths to reduction matter?

 

[Markle]

97% agree climate change is real. Stomp your feet, scream, cry, and pout all you want. Science says yes, El Dumpster says no. I'll stick with the scientists.

Seriously?

The Myth of the Climate Change '97%'

What is the origin of the false belief—constantly repeated—that almost all scientists agree about global warming?
By
JOSEPH BAST And
ROY SPENCER

May 26, 2014 7:34 pm

Last week Secretary of State John Kerry warned graduating students at Boston College of the "crippling consequences" of climate change. "Ninety-seven percent of the world's scientists," he added, "tell us this is urgent."

Where did Mr. Kerry get the 97% figure? Perhaps from his boss, President Obama, who tweeted on May 16 that "Ninety-seven percent of scientists agree: #climate change is real, man-made and dangerous." Or maybe from NASA, which posted (in more measured language) on its website, "Ninety-seven percent of climate scientists agree that climate-warming trends over the past century are very likely due to human activities."

Yet the assertion that 97% of scientists believe that climate change is a man-made, urgent problem is a fiction. The so-called consensus comes from a handful of surveys and abstract-counting exercises that have been contradicted by more reliable research.

One frequently cited source for the consensus is a 2004 opinion essay published in Science magazine by Naomi Oreskes, a science historian now at Harvard. She claimed to have examined abstracts of 928 articles published in scientific journals between 1993 and 2003, and found that 75% supported the view that human activities are responsible for most of the observed warming over the previous 50 years while none directly dissented.

Ms. Oreskes's definition of consensus covered "man-made" but left out "dangerous"—and scores of articles by prominent scientists such as Richard Lindzen, John Christy,Sherwood Idso and Patrick Michaels, who question the consensus, were excluded. The methodology is also flawed. A study published earlier this year in Nature noted that abstracts of academic papers often contain claims that aren't substantiated in the papers.

Read more at:
The Myth of the Climate Change '97%'

 

[OldLady]

I believe I heard the ultimate goal was to slow anticipated global warming by 2 degrees. Not .2 degrees.
Usually when there is a dispute over policy, somewhere in the middle is about right. But in this case, it is as if the two sides are arguing from completely different realities. It is impossible to know what is correct, except that DAMMITALL, cleaning up the environment is a good thing and joining the world in that is as well. Now the rest of the world will be snubbing us when we try to deal with our solar panels and wind turbines and even our coal. Remember the Little Red Hen? If you don't work, you don't eat.

I believe I heard the ultimate goal was to slow anticipated global warming by 2 degrees. Not .2 degrees.

The maximum expected benefit would be 0.2 degrees, at the cost of trillions. Bad idea.

It is impossible to know what is correct, except that DAMMITALL, cleaning up the environment is a good thing

This wasted money would actual clean the environment. That's why it's so stupid.

The maximum expected benefit would be 0.2 degrees, at the cost of trillions. Bad idea.
Alright, but I need that link, please.

Alright, but I need that link, please

Sorry, I was way off.

The climate impact of all Paris INDC promises is minuscule: if we measure the impact of every nation fulfilling every promise by 2030, the total temperature reduction will be 0.048°C (0.086°F) by 2100.

• Even if we assume that these promises would be extended for another 70 years, there is still little impact: if every nation fulfills every promise by 2030, and continues to fulfill these promises faithfully until the end of the century, and there is no ‘CO₂ leakage’ to non-committed nations, the entirety of the Paris promises will reduce temperature rises by just 0.17°C (0.306°F) by 2100.

Paris climate promises will reduce temperatures by just 0.05°C in 2100 (Press release) | Bjorn Lomborg

Thank you. But the Agreement calls for countries to submit their specific plans by 2020. How did he do these projections when the countries haven't submitted their plans yet?

They've already made promises of CO2 reductions.
What do the specific paths to reduction matter?

The man whose study was reported in your article was basing his estimates of the effects of the countries' actions based on not yet specific plans. To me, it makes a difference if the country hasn't decided yet exactly what it is going to do.

 

[basquebromance]

time to withdraw!

 

[oreo]

I believe I heard the ultimate goal was to slow anticipated global warming by 2 degrees. Not .2 degrees.
Usually when there is a dispute over policy, somewhere in the middle is about right. But in this case, it is as if the two sides are arguing from completely different realities. It is impossible to know what is correct, except that DAMMITALL, cleaning up the environment is a good thing and joining the world in that is as well. Now the rest of the world will be snubbing us when we try to deal with our solar panels and wind turbines and even our coal. Remember the Little Red Hen? If you don't work, you don't eat.

I believe I heard the ultimate goal was to slow anticipated global warming by 2 degrees. Not .2 degrees.

The maximum expected benefit would be 0.2 degrees, at the cost of trillions. Bad idea.

It is impossible to know what is correct, except that DAMMITALL, cleaning up the environment is a good thing

This wasted money would actual clean the environment. That's why it's so stupid.

The maximum expected benefit would be 0.2 degrees, at the cost of trillions. Bad idea.
Alright, but I need that link, please.

Alright, but I need that link, please

Sorry, I was way off.

The climate impact of all Paris INDC promises is minuscule: if we measure the impact of every nation fulfilling every promise by 2030, the total temperature reduction will be 0.048°C (0.086°F) by 2100.

• Even if we assume that these promises would be extended for another 70 years, there is still little impact: if every nation fulfills every promise by 2030, and continues to fulfill these promises faithfully until the end of the century, and there is no ‘CO₂ leakage’ to non-committed nations, the entirety of the Paris promises will reduce temperature rises by just 0.17°C (0.306°F) by 2100.

Paris climate promises will reduce temperatures by just 0.05°C in 2100 (Press release) | Bjorn Lomborg

Thank you. But the Agreement calls for countries to submit their specific plans by 2020. How did he do these projections when the countries haven't submitted their plans yet?

They've already made promises of CO2 reductions.
What do the specific paths to reduction matter?

There were higher CO2 amounts in fact 5 times higher than where we're at today. It was during the Jurassic period--when no humans existed. Human beings cannot tolerate high levels of CO 2 it is toxic to them.
Toxicity of Carbon Dioxide CO
Dinosaur Era Had 5 Times Today's CO2

Now what is it that you do not understand about coal & oil NOT lasting "forever.'?

Countries that are NOT moving into green energy are going to be left out in the cold. America has always been #1 when it came to new innovation and technology. Now we're in last place with Nicaragua and Syria-- the ONLY TWO countries that didn't sign the voluntary Paris accord.

 

[OldLady]

I believe I heard the ultimate goal was to slow anticipated global warming by 2 degrees. Not .2 degrees.
Usually when there is a dispute over policy, somewhere in the middle is about right. But in this case, it is as if the two sides are arguing from completely different realities. It is impossible to know what is correct, except that DAMMITALL, cleaning up the environment is a good thing and joining the world in that is as well. Now the rest of the world will be snubbing us when we try to deal with our solar panels and wind turbines and even our coal. Remember the Little Red Hen? If you don't work, you don't eat.

I believe I heard the ultimate goal was to slow anticipated global warming by 2 degrees. Not .2 degrees.

The maximum expected benefit would be 0.2 degrees, at the cost of trillions. Bad idea.

It is impossible to know what is correct, except that DAMMITALL, cleaning up the environment is a good thing

This wasted money would actual clean the environment. That's why it's so stupid.

The maximum expected benefit would be 0.2 degrees, at the cost of trillions. Bad idea.
Alright, but I need that link, please.

Alright, but I need that link, please

Sorry, I was way off.

The climate impact of all Paris INDC promises is minuscule: if we measure the impact of every nation fulfilling every promise by 2030, the total temperature reduction will be 0.048°C (0.086°F) by 2100.

• Even if we assume that these promises would be extended for another 70 years, there is still little impact: if every nation fulfills every promise by 2030, and continues to fulfill these promises faithfully until the end of the century, and there is no ‘CO₂ leakage’ to non-committed nations, the entirety of the Paris promises will reduce temperature rises by just 0.17°C (0.306°F) by 2100.

Paris climate promises will reduce temperatures by just 0.05°C in 2100 (Press release) | Bjorn Lomborg

Thank you. But the Agreement calls for countries to submit their specific plans by 2020. How did he do these projections when the countries haven't submitted their plans yet?

The climate accord would destroy small businesses in this country… Fact

WHY?

 

[OldLady]

Have YOU lost YOURS? That China agreed to at least take some steps? They've cancelled 105 of the coal burning plants they had planned. It's a start. And they're revving up the green tech. What is ridiculous is that we are sulking about China being a big polluter. We are second. Don't forget that.

You do realize we were the only one on the hook financially for the deal, if you can call it that. This country is broke we can't afford deals that give nothing in return.

Since when has the U.S. become the entire and only country in "the developed world"?
There is such a lot of kerfluffle over the withdrawal right now that googling the question of who pays is a pain in the patooley. But believe me you've got your facts wrong if you believe we are the only ones who agreed to pay. Trump doesn't want to. You don't want to. Okay, I hear that. But we are not the ONLY ones on the hook.

$100 Billion
"To help developing countries switch from fossil fuels to greener sources of energy and adapt to the effects of climate change, the developed world will provide $100 billion a year," NPR's Christopher Joyce reports.

But that amount is identified as a "floor," not a ceiling.

"Developed countries won inclusion of language that would up the ante in subsequent years," he explains, "so that financial aid will keep ramping up over time."
So What Exactly Is In The Paris Climate Accord?

Since when have these other countries actually follow through on their commitments?

Okay, now you're getting silly. If that's what you're going to base your argument on, I'm done talking to you.

NATO funding: How it works and who pays what

Okay. But they were there when we needed them, weren't they?

 

[oreo]

time to withdraw!

Trump didn't mention that in his ROSE GARDEN studdering speech--he stated "he was representing Pittsburg--meaning coal mining jobs--not Paris. So you can pull up a real verifiable link versus just some chart that anyone could have made up to verify that claim.

 

[OldLady]

time to withdraw!

Ahhhh!!! That's where Rustic is getting it from!
Not true, though, that the US is alone in committing funds.
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.

How much have rich countries pledged?
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. But on a per-capita basis, many other countries have offered more than the United States. Swedes, for example, will contribute nearly $60 each.
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/06/02/climate/trump-paris-green-climate-fund.html

 

[toobfreak]

Here are some real facts on the Paris Accord, which aims at attacking carbon levels. First, CO2 is plant food, second, carbon is part of life, you, me, animals, plants, rocks, everything is MADE out of carbon. The Earth self-regulates the amount of carbon, storing the extra within.

The Paris Accord will reduce CO2 in the air? Do you know that 99.97% of the air you breath is NOT CO2? Just how do you reduce CO2 by 2/10th of a percent when it isn't even that much in TOTAL now? Ask an Accord Believer to explain that one? Just what is CO2 that just a TRACE of it (necessary to all life) could destroy our planet, but volcanoes and super-volcanoes do not???

For those who may not know, the atmosphere really is as follows:

78% Nitrogen
21% Oxygen (from Plants mainly, essential for the animal life)

_That is 99% of your total atmosphere right there!_

That only leaves 1% left, as a combination of /trace gases./

These trace gases can be further broken down into the Noble gases and IR
storing gases which help to moderate our climate.

Of that 1% trace gas left over, _9/10ths_ of that is ARGON, a harmless,
inert gas.

That leaves roughly 0.1%, or about 1/10th of 1/100th of the atmosphere
left.

The other remaining inert noble gases (combined total of 0.002% total
atmosphere) are Neon, Helium, Krypton, Xenon, and also Hydrogen.

Of the remaining (combined total less than 1/10th of 1%, or 000.098% of
the atmosphere) atmosphere left over, these are the IR storing
components, such as Water Vapor, Carbon Dioxide, Methane, Nitrous
Oxide and Ozone, /combined/.

Kind of puts things into perspective, doesn't it?

Don't take my word for it---- go look it up and research it out. The Paris Accord is a scam to yet again like all other "deals" set forth in the past, just bilk more money out from the USA like a fat cow and put into the deep pockets of globalists! Want to know why people like Angela Merkel got that funny look on her face? Because for years AMERICAN POLITICIANS LIKE HILLARY CLINTON have been selling out their country for money, for a price, they will "cut you in." Now that Trump is here,. he IS NOT A PLAYER, he cannot be threatened or bribed.

ALL THESE OTHER COUNTRIES in EU and NATO, etc., PART OF THEIR ECONOMY IS LONG BEEN BASED ON SUCKING THE USA for MONEY!! Now that Trump is in, Merkel really meant it that for once, countries like Germany are really going to have to start carrying their own weight. And they are terrified.

 

[Geaux4it]

I applaud his speech. Why let China get a free ride until 2030?

America first baby

-Geaux

How China is leading the world in solar energy production

Alt-Right didn't tell you this?

Global Warming. Eeeeer Climate Change is about Obamas transfer of wealth plain and simple. China has cities but we can't see them.

-Geaux

 

[BuckToothMoron]

How would we ever survive (if we had to have cars that get 40 MPG and free power from the sun)?

Yes, because its that simple..

Well it's not going to get any easier if we don't get started. Norway is now 50% electric cars. 80% of their power is hydroelectric. Now they're a lot smaller than us; I get that. But it can be done.

Horseshit. Show me where you get this claim that 50% of the cares on the road in Norway are electric.

You're right, she made it up, or just lied. Come on Old Lady, you're better than that.
Electric car use by country - Wikipedia
Norway is the country with the highest market penetration per capita in the world, also the country with the largest plug-in electric segment market share of new car sales (29.1% in 2016), and in March 2014 Norway became the first country where over 1 in every 100 passenger cars on the roads is a plug-in electric vehicle. The segment's market penetration climbed to 3% in December 2015, and achieved 5% at the end of 2016.[9][10][1

I remembered the stats wrong. Maybe the goal is 50% by such and such a date. I saw it on the news, so couldn't check back on the #'s. Thanks for fixing that. I don't purposely lie. I AM better than that.

I know you are.

 

[Billy_Bob]

I believe I heard the ultimate goal was to slow anticipated global warming by 2 degrees. Not .2 degrees.

The maximum expected benefit would be 0.2 degrees, at the cost of trillions. Bad idea.

It is impossible to know what is correct, except that DAMMITALL, cleaning up the environment is a good thing

This wasted money would actual clean the environment. That's why it's so stupid.

The maximum expected benefit would be 0.2 degrees, at the cost of trillions. Bad idea.
Alright, but I need that link, please.

Alright, but I need that link, please

Sorry, I was way off.

The climate impact of all Paris INDC promises is minuscule: if we measure the impact of every nation fulfilling every promise by 2030, the total temperature reduction will be 0.048°C (0.086°F) by 2100.

• Even if we assume that these promises would be extended for another 70 years, there is still little impact: if every nation fulfills every promise by 2030, and continues to fulfill these promises faithfully until the end of the century, and there is no ‘CO₂ leakage’ to non-committed nations, the entirety of the Paris promises will reduce temperature rises by just 0.17°C (0.306°F) by 2100.

Paris climate promises will reduce temperatures by just 0.05°C in 2100 (Press release) | Bjorn Lomborg

Thank you. But the Agreement calls for countries to submit their specific plans by 2020. How did he do these projections when the countries haven't submitted their plans yet?

They've already made promises of CO2 reductions.
What do the specific paths to reduction matter?

There were higher CO2 amounts in fact 5 times higher than where we're at today. It was during the Jurassic period--when no humans existed. Human beings cannot tolerate high levels of CO 2 it is toxic to them.
Toxicity of Carbon Dioxide CO
Dinosaur Era Had 5 Times Today's CO2

Now what is it that you do not understand about coal & oil NOT lasting "forever.'?

Countries that are NOT moving into green energy are going to be left out in the cold. America has always been #1 when it came to new innovation and technology. Now we're in last place with Nicaragua and Syria-- the ONLY TWO countries that didn't sign the voluntary Paris accord.

Tell that to Submarine Sailors who commonly operate at 4,000-6,000 ppm... for extended periods.. without ill effect.