Trump Expected to Pull Out of Paris Climate Agreement

remind me of Trump ban Muslim stance; then later, we aren't banning Muslim

seriously, people can't even be honest to themselves?

 

Trump's next move should be to get the Senate to vote on the Paris agreement. Watch the Joe Manchins and Claire MacCaskills of the Senate vote it down.

 

Could other countries do this? like say China..............

 

These are naive (at best) and dishonest responses. So far this president, led by advice from his EPA administrator, has shown no indication of concern for the environment. At every opportunity they have reversed regulatory protections related to the environment, usually to the intended benefit of the energy companies you mentioned. But to date, these moves by Trump have not appeared to help companies:

http://www.businessinsider.com/trump-is-reducing-environmental-regulations-2017-6

Even if I accepted your stat of $1,000 per family (not sourced as far as I know), I'd pay $1,000 a year for an improved environment that would not only benefit me and my immediate family but also future generations. Seems a very reasonable investment. The added benefit of improved perception among other countries and the possibility that it improves our security. Which would also suggest that the $1,000 spent to improve the environment would be better spent here than on military spending.

To your question about why companies have lined up to oppose Trump's latest move against the environment? Since the companies span all industries, its disingenuous to suggest the Paris Agreement was a move to help "buddies in energy business". Instead, these corporations and the CEOs that run them know that good environmental policy can also mean good business. And its even more concerning that CEOs of major corporations across all industries express more and better concern about our environment that the president and the person he put in charge of protecting the environment. Unfortunately the president didn't listen to the Secretary of State and Secretary of the Interior on this...both who favored staying in the Paris Agreement.

But in hindsight... all of this is for naught. Unfortunately, American voted in a president who has no concern about the environment. A president who appointed as EPA administrator who has no concern about the environment. So there will be many more opportunities for further weakening of environmental protections at the cost of the quality of life, here in the United States, and worldwide. Hopefully the next administration will fix the damage caused by this one.

 

Don't forget India. They are going to want a piece of the big pie and they will attract many companies that are working on future energies.

 

yes, i can only imagine the benefits of the temperature of the Earth going down .02 degrees by 2050. Your children will notice and thank you for such an important contribution.

 

The presidents cabinet actually does believe in climate change.

His Secretary of State, secretary of energy and the EPA administrator are all on record believing in climate change with the first two advising to stay in this deal. Other than the president himself, not sure if any member of his cabinet denies climate change?

 

LOL you believe this? You're triggered.

 

Again... you are either naive or disingenuous to position support of the Paris Agreement solely in terms of global temperature reduction as reported by National Review. But I get it... you are programmed to support any and all things done by Trump. You voted for him, and you have to justify your vote. You see any move through a "wealth distribution" lens, and care not about the environment, now or in the future.

 

Are you sure on Scott Pruitt. At best he seems he has avoided directly answering questions about climate change, and without question he denies CO2 as a cause, and questions human activity as a cause of climate change:

http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-...tt-questions-basic-facts-about-climate-change

 

EPA's model numbers (model is called MAGICC*). not national review. The EPA's position is that that the CPP does not reduce temperatures but shows initiative. That's what we are getting for our trillions. not solutions, but 'initiative'. But I must be super naive (I don't think that word means what you think it means)

 

Again, you are either being naive or disingenuous... first, you take a single bullet out a report on the CPP, and didn't discuss any of the range of environmental and economic benefits such as reduction of pollutants, led, energy savings, and increase in renewable energy generation.

The reason I use the word naive... I am offering you an out from the other possibility.

 

the left is the group that is "programmed to oppose" here. They don't even understand what's included in the Paris agreement.

Instead, they're positioning this as "the end of American global leadership", "we don't care about trees, water and island nations", and "F you, Earth".

 

Fact checking Trump on leaving Paris Agreement:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...l/?tid=pm_politics_pop&utm_term=.e9a40c657346

 

Well, to be honest, Trump doesn't help matters here. He is a very poor communicator. But I don't see most of these "left" posters arguing over nothing- they have legit points. Some haven't read it in its entirety, true. As long as Ivanka got her concession....

 

Then whats with all the tweets from elon musk and others saying 'climate change is real and a threat' if the goal of this is not to address climate change?

But just so everyone is clear, NewRox has admitted this Paris **** has nothing to do with climate change. Apparently it has to do with air pollution and economic benefits (haha) because it doesn't do anything for climate change.