This is a disaster for the world. It shames us that our Prime Minister puts licking a mad Presdient's backside above the welfare of the planet and everybody who lives on it now and in the future. That is our children and grandchildren.
Many won't like it but his voters will. In spades. Rust-belt voters see the Paris Climate deal as a job killer and many ldon't like the idea of global governance of anything.
Plus, Obama never got the treaty ratified in the Senate and so it was never Constituional to begin with. He just signed it as an "agreement." Agreements carry no weight, here, when they are done circumventing the Constitution.
I think the whole Paris Accord is really big global government and big business using it to insulate themselves from competition. I am usually very suspect of treaties where everyone seems to think it is a good thing. Especially when it makes government and big business each happy.
Americans on their own are buying solar and electric cars and recycling more. The trend is already strong. I don't need Al Gore and Leo DiCaprio telling me I need to be taxed more while they pay "carbon taxes" to companies they own, themselves and fly 50,000 miles per year on their private jets.
Couple quick notes: 1) Senate ratifying a treaty doesn't make it "Constitutional," it just makes it law. Constitutionality and legality are not the same thing. 2) The President has the Constitutionally mandated power to make treaties. Obama was within his right to make this non-binding agreement. 3) To say it did nothing is wrong, there are a lot of states who have already come out and said they will respect the accord, including the 6th largest economy in the world (California) http://www.cnn.com/2017/06/01/us/trump-climate-deal-cities-states-defying/ 4) People recycling and buying Teslas or Priuses or whatever is nowhere near enough, that's a frankly silly example. I'd argue that the Paris accords do not go nearly far enough. To combat global warming, there needs to be a concerted effort to change how we create and utilize energy. That is not something a Prius or a recycled bottle does. 5) Donald Trump is a man with a 39.1% approval rating and a 54.8% disapproval rating at a time with no major disasters and a pretty good economy. I bring this up because you talk about "good politics." A 39.1% approval rating will not win you a second term, and the early indicators are of around a 15% point swing to the Dems in 2018 (GA-6 will be a good test for this, but that's around where Montana and KS-4 landed). This is something that may play to his base, but little else. And the fact of the matter is, there are more renewable energy jobs than coal jobs, and they're expanding at a rate 12 times faster than the economy. In fact, last year, electricity generating solar jobs employed more people than oil, gas, and coal combined. And solar out-employs coal at a rate of roughly 2.5:1. This is simply a backward look to play to an ill-informed base who think that Hollywood actors and a global government New World Order and not the fundamental change in the world we live in is the biggest problem. But the problem is, he's not campaigning in Ohio anymore. He's President of the entire country. And the Paris accord is actually favorable by a majority of Americans in every state. Paris accord or no Paris accord, it's becoming increasingly clear that coal and manufacturing jobs are not coming back. One need only look at Carrier, such a focus of Trump's before taking office (note: this is a sample size of one, but one which the President has made such a focal point). There will, of course, be some that stick with Trump even if he takes away their healthcare (there's a good Weeds in the Wild podcast from Monday about this) and doesn't bring jobs back. But his base is not that big. And it's shrinking. So, in short, no, this is not good politics. This is bad politics. You cannot effectively run a country with a 39% approval rating and 54% Disapproval rating while being investigated by the FBI, Senate, House, and other organizations. At some point he needs to expand his base. He continues to take actions that do just the opposite. 6) Man made global warming does not give a fuck what you, I, Leonardo DiCaprio, or anyone thinks. It is happening.
Well we haven't condemned but said we are disapointed. Condemnation from your closest allies is powerful. But we need to focus on Trump - he can't continue like this. He is a danger to our planet every day he is in power.
"6) Man made global warming does not give a fuck what you, I, Leonardo DiCaprio, or anyone thinks. It is happening."
Possibly one of the best sentences ever written on CL in a non football thread.
I really hope @NapaAddick , having lit the blue touch paper, is going to come back and reply to some of the points. I didn't get the impression, from his post that he is a climate change denier. Although after reading your comprehensive demolition I reckon he's going to stay logged off, check the weather forecast, and fret about his vines.
Meanwhile a Trump spokesman when asked about his decision increasing tensions with European allies, said that is "a secondary benefit"
Trump is the little boy and the emperor's new clothes. Until everybody starts taking fixing the problem seriously instead of just playing lip service to it then global warming isn't going to go away. The dash for growth in China, India and other parts of Asia is the biggest problem but those countries won't slow down any time soon. Ironically, I think it's a major opportunity for Britain if we step our efforts up even more and go as 'green' as we can before everybody does wake up and it gets far too expensive to change.
The Spiv will be out of office in a few years (perhaps sooner). The numerous countries that signed up to the Paris Accord will do their thing regardless of isolationist Trump. Red-necks and coal-mine owners will raise a glass and 'decent America' and the rest of the world will look forward to the Spiv's demise.
Bang on Anna. I'm utterly convinced that when he embarked upon this 'journey' he didn't really believe he'd get anywhere and he didn't even want it. It was just a macho, 'look at me' exercise; a grander version of his Apprentice show.
But then, as it progressed and he rather bizarrely found that he did indeed have support out there (still totally baffling!), he simply had to continue on his unlikely road to power. For him, pulling out would not have been an option due to his machismo. Am positive that he will not see a full term out.
It is disappointing decision by Trump. Having said that the Paris Accord is a bit of a political sideshow. There are two big issues that equally need addressing. The first is a need to find new way of capturing solar energy. Renewable energy is currently very expensive. Wind energy is expensive and damaging to the environment in other ways. The current ways of capturing solar are expensive and we need a more efficient way of capturing it. The second issue that needs addressing is something that is not politically correct to talk about. However it is many ways the most important. The population explosion over the last 100 years and projections over the medium term put enormous pressures on all natural resources let alone the animal and plant life being destroyed.
Trump could have and should of had the balls to do this last week, if that's what he genuinely believes, instead of showboating in his back garden to his own audience. But last week he wouldn't of had been surrounded by sycophants.
This idiot is in his seventies and clearly doesn't give a toss what happens to America let alone the world even in his short remaining years.
Brexit was a year ago yet every thread someone has to mention it
I wonder why. "FFS we all know we are driving towards a cliff. We have been ever since we decided to go down this road. Just stop going on about it will you?"
Trump could have and should of had the balls to do this last week, if that's what he genuinely believes, instead of showboating in his back garden to his own audience. But last week he wouldn't of had been surrounded by sycophants.
This idiot is in his seventies and clearly doesn't give a toss what happens to America let alone the world even in his short remaining years.
And - we are in a much worse place than the US. Whatever their other (many - in my view) failings they have a written constitution, full blown regional government and no President can serve longer than 8 years. We have none of this. Trump is an attention seeking baby who will be gone by either 2020 or 2024. Brexit is permanent.
So true simonmatthews. Trump could be gone by Christmas. Even if he isn't, it'll take several years to undo the climate agreement stuff - and whoever comes next will be shooting a fish in a barrel with their proposed policies. We are way more screwed than that.
Edit - I hasten to add, it's probably too late for mankind to fix their ways anyway. Better hope we figure out how to terraform. Or more realistically, re-terraform.
"6) Man made global warming does not give a fuck what you, I, Leonardo DiCaprio, or anyone thinks. It is happening."
Possibly one of the best sentences ever written on CL in a non football thread.
I really hope @NapaAddick , having lit the blue touch paper, is going to come back and reply to some of the points. I didn't get the impression, from his post that he is a climate change denier. Although after reading your comprehensive demolition I reckon he's going to stay logged off, check the weather forecast, and fret about his vines.
Meanwhile a Trump spokesman when asked about his decision increasing tensions with European allies, said that is "a secondary benefit"
Prague, genuinely flattered.
@NapaAddick, I want to say that my post was not just directed at you. There was a lot of pent up frustration in that, plus I've been ill and I get cranky when I'm ill. The "law is not Constitutionality" stuff comes across as really condescending, and that's not ok. I'm assuming you're English, and there are a lot of Americans who don't understand the distinction. Ditto the President making treaties stuff. And there are still a lot of things within our system which I need to look up, it is not that straight forward.
I'm very much for having a reasonable discussion on this. Going on your posts about football formations and tactics you seems like a very smart, well read person (it's on my to do list to respond to both the tactics thread and your "Why England Lose" post in the Rumors thread). I hope I haven't turned you off with my comment.
Pittsburgh will not be alone. California, and many city mayors will continue with their existing policies. Plus many National policies will take years to implement.
To be reinstated as soon at Trumpnut leaves office. He appears to be a simpleton with declining facilities.
I've enjoyed reading this thread - it's interesting to see a big part of my current job being discussed in an area that was a big part of my previous one!
I spent a week at the Paris climate talks (COP21) on the fringes of the negotiations two and half years ago, when I was seconded to the Mary Robinson Foundation - Climate Justice and spent 36 hours shadowing the chair of the Least Developed Countries (LDC) negotiating group (here's the resulting story I helped to compile in case of interest). I was also in Marrakech (COP22) for last year's event when Trump was elected, which resulted in a very different mood around the venue....
My organisation works with the world's poorest countries to ensure they have an equitable voice in the negotiations, providing legal and logistical support, and I think it's worth mentioning a couple of things that haven't cropped up too much so far.
As others have pointed out the agreement cannot/will not be renegotiated, but Trump's reasoning is completely at odds with the UNFCCC process which, despite its best efforts, gives the biggest countries such as the US overwhelming power. Even if you ignore the wider benefits being a superpower brings, they have a huge advantage purely in terms of logistics.
The likes of the US can afford to bring 100s of negotiators and support staff/legal experts to the climate talks, while the smaller, less affluent countries are largely forced to rely on the two negotiators the UNFCCC subsidises, and then group together to share resources and expertise.
Are negotiations 'fair' when the negotiators from larger countries can swap in and out when they get tired over the course of 30-hour sessions while those they are arguing with have to stay? When they have hugely better facilities? The LDC Group wasn't even initially provided with a photocopier in Paris, and had to 'borrow' tables and chairs from the common areas - and even then they didn't have enough...
In terms of climate finance, it's perfectly reasonable for the poorest countries in the world, which are suffering the most destructive impacts of climate change, to ask for and receive funding for adaptation measures. After all, it's the richest countries that have caused the problem.
And where are people in countries such as the Marshall Islands, which is facing devastation caused by rising sea levels, going? Why, the US of course. You'd think a president obsessed by immigration would know that...
Apparently it's all the fault of all the lefties in the US and around the world that forced to Trump to choose to leave the Paris accord according to that wise old owl Mike Pence -
Has no bearing on what other countries do. Am sure if they all adhere to whatever was agreed it will go some way towards what they are trying to achieve.
Is there some way that the US can keep their own emissions and choke on their own problems that arise from it?
Oh no .... wait .......
The US has the largest drop in emissions of any country the last 10 years. And a study shows it declining the next 10 as well. None of that happened due to the Paris Accords.
Btw... almost every country that signed it is wayyyyy behind their emission targets thus far.
I was reading Cosmos by Carl Sagan not long ago. Man is my god. Anyway, climate change from global warming had been a thing since the 70s.
Actually my favorite guy as well.
Have no doubts about global warming. Just don't trust government to fix it. No chance I will ever support yet another tax on top of all the taxes I pay already, for carbon emissions. Especially if Al Gore gets his way and it would go to any form of global government.
Comments
1) Senate ratifying a treaty doesn't make it "Constitutional," it just makes it law. Constitutionality and legality are not the same thing.
2) The President has the Constitutionally mandated power to make treaties. Obama was within his right to make this non-binding agreement.
3) To say it did nothing is wrong, there are a lot of states who have already come out and said they will respect the accord, including the 6th largest economy in the world (California)
http://www.cnn.com/2017/06/01/us/trump-climate-deal-cities-states-defying/
4) People recycling and buying Teslas or Priuses or whatever is nowhere near enough, that's a frankly silly example. I'd argue that the Paris accords do not go nearly far enough. To combat global warming, there needs to be a concerted effort to change how we create and utilize energy. That is not something a Prius or a recycled bottle does.
5) Donald Trump is a man with a 39.1% approval rating and a 54.8% disapproval rating at a time with no major disasters and a pretty good economy. I bring this up because you talk about "good politics." A 39.1% approval rating will not win you a second term, and the early indicators are of around a 15% point swing to the Dems in 2018 (GA-6 will be a good test for this, but that's around where Montana and KS-4 landed). This is something that may play to his base, but little else. And the fact of the matter is, there are more renewable energy jobs than coal jobs, and they're expanding at a rate 12 times faster than the economy. In fact, last year, electricity generating solar jobs employed more people than oil, gas, and coal combined. And solar out-employs coal at a rate of roughly 2.5:1.
This is simply a backward look to play to an ill-informed base who think that Hollywood actors and a global government New World Order and not the fundamental change in the world we live in is the biggest problem. But the problem is, he's not campaigning in Ohio anymore. He's President of the entire country. And the Paris accord is actually favorable by a majority of Americans in every state. Paris accord or no Paris accord, it's becoming increasingly clear that coal and manufacturing jobs are not coming back. One need only look at Carrier, such a focus of Trump's before taking office (note: this is a sample size of one, but one which the President has made such a focal point).
There will, of course, be some that stick with Trump even if he takes away their healthcare (there's a good Weeds in the Wild podcast from Monday about this) and doesn't bring jobs back. But his base is not that big. And it's shrinking.
So, in short, no, this is not good politics. This is bad politics. You cannot effectively run a country with a 39% approval rating and 54% Disapproval rating while being investigated by the FBI, Senate, House, and other organizations. At some point he needs to expand his base. He continues to take actions that do just the opposite.
6) Man made global warming does not give a fuck what you, I, Leonardo DiCaprio, or anyone thinks. It is happening.
A very good piece from The Post on the ways in which this makes no sense:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/politics/wp/2017/06/01/all-the-reasons-that-trumps-withdrawal-from-the-paris-climate-agreement-doesnt-make-sense/?tid=sm_fb&utm_term=.28f00d7dab93
So now we are clearly not 'sucking US cock' we can concentrate on Trump being a bell end which is the focus of yesterday's developments.
"6) Man made global warming does not give a fuck what you, I, Leonardo DiCaprio, or anyone thinks. It is happening."
Possibly one of the best sentences ever written on CL in a non football thread.
I really hope @NapaAddick , having lit the blue touch paper, is going to come back and reply to some of the points. I didn't get the impression, from his post that he is a climate change denier. Although after reading your comprehensive demolition I reckon he's going to stay logged off, check the weather forecast, and fret about his vines.
Meanwhile a Trump spokesman when asked about his decision increasing tensions with European allies, said that is "a secondary benefit"
I wouldn't wish harm on anyone (with perhaps the notable exception of nutjob Trump).
But then, as it progressed and he rather bizarrely found that he did indeed have support out there (still totally baffling!), he simply had to continue on his unlikely road to power. For him, pulling out would not have been an option due to his machismo. Am positive that he will not see a full term out.
The first is a need to find new way of capturing solar energy. Renewable energy is currently very expensive. Wind energy is expensive and damaging to the environment in other ways. The current ways of capturing solar are expensive and we need a more efficient way of capturing it.
The second issue that needs addressing is something that is not politically correct to talk about. However it is many ways the most important. The population explosion over the last 100 years and projections over the medium term put enormous pressures on all natural resources let alone the animal and plant life being destroyed.
This idiot is in his seventies and clearly doesn't give a toss what happens to America let alone the world even in his short remaining years.
Edit - I hasten to add, it's probably too late for mankind to fix their ways anyway. Better hope we figure out how to terraform. Or more realistically, re-terraform.
@NapaAddick, I want to say that my post was not just directed at you. There was a lot of pent up frustration in that, plus I've been ill and I get cranky when I'm ill. The "law is not Constitutionality" stuff comes across as really condescending, and that's not ok. I'm assuming you're English, and there are a lot of Americans who don't understand the distinction. Ditto the President making treaties stuff. And there are still a lot of things within our system which I need to look up, it is not that straight forward.
I'm very much for having a reasonable discussion on this. Going on your posts about football formations and tactics you seems like a very smart, well read person (it's on my to do list to respond to both the tactics thread and your "Why England Lose" post in the Rumors thread). I hope I haven't turned you off with my comment.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/jun/02/giant-antarctic-iceberg-hanging-by-a-thread-say-scientists?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other
California, and many city mayors will continue with their existing policies.
Plus many National policies will take years to implement.
To be reinstated as soon at Trumpnut leaves office.
He appears to be a simpleton with declining facilities.
The Man is a buffoon.
I spent a week at the Paris climate talks (COP21) on the fringes of the negotiations two and half years ago, when I was seconded to the Mary Robinson Foundation - Climate Justice and spent 36 hours shadowing the chair of the Least Developed Countries (LDC) negotiating group (here's the resulting story I helped to compile in case of interest). I was also in Marrakech (COP22) for last year's event when Trump was elected, which resulted in a very different mood around the venue....
My organisation works with the world's poorest countries to ensure they have an equitable voice in the negotiations, providing legal and logistical support, and I think it's worth mentioning a couple of things that haven't cropped up too much so far.
The first is Trump's assertion that the US got 'a bad deal', which is ludicrous (as mentioned above). The very fact the agreement was ultimately non-binding - that it had no legal enforcement attached - was significantly down to the US negotiators. Even the last-minute hitch which threatened to derail the entire process was resolved in the US' favour.
As others have pointed out the agreement cannot/will not be renegotiated, but Trump's reasoning is completely at odds with the UNFCCC process which, despite its best efforts, gives the biggest countries such as the US overwhelming power. Even if you ignore the wider benefits being a superpower brings, they have a huge advantage purely in terms of logistics.
The likes of the US can afford to bring 100s of negotiators and support staff/legal experts to the climate talks, while the smaller, less affluent countries are largely forced to rely on the two negotiators the UNFCCC subsidises, and then group together to share resources and expertise.
Are negotiations 'fair' when the negotiators from larger countries can swap in and out when they get tired over the course of 30-hour sessions while those they are arguing with have to stay? When they have hugely better facilities? The LDC Group wasn't even initially provided with a photocopier in Paris, and had to 'borrow' tables and chairs from the common areas - and even then they didn't have enough...
In terms of climate finance, it's perfectly reasonable for the poorest countries in the world, which are suffering the most destructive impacts of climate change, to ask for and receive funding for adaptation measures. After all, it's the richest countries that have caused the problem.
And where are people in countries such as the Marshall Islands, which is facing devastation caused by rising sea levels, going? Why, the US of course. You'd think a president obsessed by immigration would know that...
Has no bearing on what other countries do.
Am sure if they all adhere to whatever was agreed it will go some way towards what they are trying to achieve.
Btw... almost every country that signed it is wayyyyy behind their emission targets thus far.
Have no doubts about global warming. Just don't trust government to fix it. No chance I will ever support yet another tax on top of all the taxes I pay already, for carbon emissions. Especially if Al Gore gets his way and it would go to any form of global government.