Trump Expected to Pull Out of Paris Climate Agreement

So per dollar spent, you think this is a great way to reduce smog right?

 

That's your assumption, that he's just doing the opposite for the sake of doing the opposite. It was a bad deal for the US, who cares that other countries who got better terms signed it? Who cares that it took "decades" to get into the bad agreement?

The reason I'm saying it's a "bad thing" is due to the impact to the economy and the rising energy costs that will be a harsh burden for the poorest Americans.....all to go along with an agreement that likely has no effect on climate change. The reason why you leave an agreement like that is because America has a history of living up to things like that while no one else does. Why agree to hurt the economy and burden poor people if it's not going to do anything?

 

What? The reduction of smog is a free benefit of reducing CO2. You either believe in the benefits of reducing CO2 or you don't. Cleaner air seems like a nice byproduct of reducing CO2 emissions.

 

The issue with that is that despite attempts to reduce ozone pollution in the US, China continues to produce more and more....in fact there was a study done that showed that "imported" ozone pollution from China offset 43% of the efforts to reduce ozone pollution in the US......and according to this amazing deal, China can do pretty much whatever it wants till 2030......and even that is non-binding.

So really, this has a high price tag and little to no benefits. That's the problem.

 

But your picture that you used to criticize the move showed smog. Something that people care about greatly. But something that is not at all a goal of this very costly agreement to reduce. Because you would have to be r****ded to make this the plan to reduce smog. If only we could go back in time and prevent european cars from cheating our much stricter emissions testing we could have cleaner air today. At least we are far better off than toxic london.

 

So the bad agreement with bad impacts to the economy is why CEOs from different sectors wanted Trump to stay in the agreement?

You haven't convinced me of your claims.

 

So.....do you actually have a counter argument, or is it just a "CEO's of companies set to profit by the agreement think that it was a good thing thus so do i" type situation?

I mean, you don't even bother trying to dispute what I'm saying, probably because you know you can't, but you still want to broadly disagree anyway....

Appeal to authority is a logical fallacy, if you want to convince anyone, make an actual argument.

 

Also, on top of China, you have India planning to build 370 new coal power plants....which is perfectly fine under this agreement despite the fact that it'll prevent them from hitting the targets agreed upon.....again when those things are going on, why would the US sign on to hurt their economy and disproportionally harm poor families if they follow through with it....and on top of that we'll still be dealing with the effects of climate change.

 

Energy majors like Exxon, Chevron, and Shell that endorsed the Paris Accords can still profit from natural gas over coal (which they aren't much into), but even without the agreement, coal will still shrink unless the government props it up.

It's not really appealing to authority when energy interests are impacted by the agreement. It just means that they looked at their bottom lines and didn't come up with the same bad conclusion (sauces?) you did.

I can't truly dispute what you're saying because your assertions aren't grounded by facts rather common sense opinions and gut feelings.

 

I didn't say reducing smog was a goal of the agreement. I Didn't say that was why they were making the agreement. I said that it was a nice byproduct of the agreement that I liked. Not sure I can explain any more clearly.

 

Very convenient for you to discount the study because it's done by a bank.

Other ones..by the way...
https://www.vox.com/2015/7/28/9053283/clean-energy-efficiency-money
https://www.theguardian.com/environ...ome-climate-science-right-but-economics-wrong

I'm still waiting for your source by the way.

 

So energy companies didn't like that energy costs wouldn't be inflating due to pulling out of the agreement....I'm shocked.

Look man, you've yet to state a single fact disputing the facts I've stated. If the US followed the Paris climate agreement it would cause energy prices to rise. That's just a fact.....and you haven't even sought to dispute that with anything of substance so can we assume that you agree with that point?

I keep trying to get you to make an actual argument based in fact, but you continue to refuse opting instead for logical fallacies.

 

I didn't say you did. I said you posted a picture of smog because people care about smog and might assume this agreement was to reduce it. I guess you are now claiming that picture was unrelated to the goal of the agreement tho. That's cool. The producers of the smog in your picture were also in your picture FYI.

 

How did China and india negotiate such favorable terms?

 

I'm not really discounting the study so much as I am pointing out that they weren't disputing that energy costs would rise as a result of the agreement. They merely say that eventually after they rise due to the agreement they'll reduce in 20 or 30 years to the point where it makes it worth it if you factor in the savings from preventing climate change.....which is an assumption not based on fact.

 

William Blake wrote: "The eagle never lost so much time, as when he submitted to learn of the crow."
Use your ignore list liberally.

 

They had people negotiating on their behalf that actually cared about their interests quite unlike the US. Just a different set of goals. China and India were looking out for China and India, the US was....well, they just wanted a deal done no matter what the terms or if it would actually do anything positive.

 

Nah, not my style. I prefer to hear what people who disagree with me have to say, even when I think it is foolish. Only a simpleton would attempt to tune out everyone who thinks differently from them simply because they think differently from them. I only block outright trolls.

 

What ass did you pull that number from?

 

I see that you are staying with the "Unless you take this step, you can't support any other step to combat global warming." approach. LOL. At least you're consistent, I guess.