Trump Expected to Pull Out of Paris Climate Agreement

LOL... did Trump simply "badly misunderstand? Or was it simply another "alternative fact" that Trump is so famous for? Let's see... MIT scientist... or Donald Trump...

Trump misunderstood MIT climate research, university officials say

And the Trump administration's lie to defend the lie:

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-climatechange-trump-mit-idUSKBN18S6L0

"Tiny, tiny". Perhaps Trump got confused by looking at his own hands. Or maybe something else that is "tiny, tiny"...

 

I can't let this slide. How do you feel about the development of the Internet, the place where you post this opinion?

 

I think it may be the single most trans-formative development in history.... why? You don't still believe it was invented by Al Gore do you?

 

Just remember that Rick Perry thought the Paris Accords was a good move to stay in. Just remember that electricity prices didn't rise in Texas when Perry invested in transmission and wind subsidies. It also didn't hurt the poor.

This is one area where Rick Perry has some actual knowledge on, as well as ole Rex.

 

I'm sure that he'll point out that government funding played a pretty significant role with developing the internet.....then the free market made it what it is today. Of course, it's not a perfect analogy but it is something positive that the government helped create by providing funding. That of course has nothing at all to do with the topic of this thread which is the Paris climate agreement, but let's face it, very few people are actually talking about the topic of the thread opting instead to talk about how awful climate change will be or things Trump said about climate change 5 years ago, or pictures of smog, or unrelated political cartoons

 

Though as usual I don't really enjoy your oblique "debating techniques," I actually agree with what one-might-guess-Cohete-Roho's-position-to-be, in this case. And I've quit eating meat that needs to graze. And I used to LOVE beef and still do, but don't eat it.

Cattle farming is a terribly inefficient use of land and especially water, plus, as I think you're pointing out, it's an enormous contributor to humankind's greenhouse gas output.

So yeah, if people want to yell about the (non-binding but importantly symbolic) Paris Accord, it's fair to ask if they still eat beef, IMHO. And also if they restrict their air travel, for what that's worth. Owning a Prius is less impactful, per year, than skipping one transcontinental airline flight.

Finally, it would be the most defensible position for Trump, Pruit, Commodore et al.: yes, the planet is warming, and we are most likely contributing to that in a major way, but... we LIKE TO EAT DA BEEF! Trump Steaks, boyeee! I could see that as more intellectually honest than claiming a flexible, non-binding treaty was somehow going to cost everyone a ton of money. Give me a break. Trump and his merry band of liberal-bashers just wanted to flip off liberals, and scientists, and the planet's governments in general. At its root, sociopathic, bully type move. But give him this: campaign promise realized. Check.

 

Rather than getting into an argument where neither one of us will convince the other of anything, I'll just recommend a really great book. The Innovators, by Walter Isaacson, details some fascinating history on the development of the Internet, personal computers and protocols. Some development was privately funded, at places like Bell Labs and Xerox, and others projects, like TCP/IP and Arpanet, were developed with government grants or by agencies themselves.

In your rush to espouse dogmatic "Government is always bad!" talking points, you lose sight of nuance and the possibility that *gasp* both sides are correct and not everything has to be a zero-sum partisan game.

 

Regardless of the impact of going vegan (I had never even thought of the environmental impact of meat really) I very much appreciate that you are taking a personal interest and action into fixing this problem.

 

It's hard not to be hyper partisan in this forum and I truly believe that we have a larger partisan problem than any other problem in politics. That said, I really don't think the Paris Agreement amounts to a hill of beans either way and Trump certainly didn't help reach across the isle with this action so I can't say this action has much of a positive impact on anything.

 

Well, I still eat me some yardbird. Honestly, the beef thing is part environment (and water supply), plus part health-related. Don't have a very good family history of heart disease and all that.

You know that Isaacson book recommendation above is really good. He's a great researcher and writer with readable books; not really a partisan whiff to his work, if you ask me. Also a great book about Einstein.

 

The impact of going vegan to reduce CO2 emissions is negligible because 40% of our food supply is wasted in the US. That means perfectly edible meats and vegetables are sent to the dumpster all wrapped up, nice and neat. Some former vegans dumpster dive and eat meat from their spoils because of the enormity of food wasted that goes beyond their individual purchasing powers.

It's just like asking whether all environmentalists drive electric or hybrids. Many more can and should, but the economies of scale are beyond the actions of a single group or user.

 

All that you say sounds right, but I disagree with your premise to some degree: yes, we common people also need to do our parts to prevent global warming, rather than be hypocrites; BUT, not all parties are equal here. One common person's resource use is pretty negligible compared to top predators and corporations. Trump or Beyonce or Tom Cruise uses enormous resources compared to you or me. Then, when you consider corporations (who have the rights of people in politics, evidently), they use unimaginably more resources than you or I. I used to do landscape work, and every morning, the McDonald's next door to one of my jobs would spend about 45 minutes spraying down their parking lot with water. Now, no matter how often I turn off the water while I am brushing my teeth, it's not going to make much of a difference against that one McDonald's bathing its parking lot in water every morning. I remember in Houston ten or so years ago they said there was an air quality alert in the summer, so would people please stop using their lawnmowers. LOL yeah right: talk to one paper mill, don't put it on the shoulders of 50,000 lawnmower pushers. So, while I agree that common people must not be hypocrites, I also think it is a mistake to say, "Well, if I don't do it, I can't ask Walmart to do it." With power comes responsibility. With massive resource consumption comes massive responsibility.

 

I'll admit from the start I'm not very up to speed on climate change as a science issue so take any questions I pose as sincere. Having said that...

I'm a believer that addressing climate change responsibly has no down side. From the little I've read up on this accord, there was plenty of criticism of the original deal when Obama made it in Paris...even from some that said it didn't go far enough.

I also have read where Trump is not walking away from negotiations about climate change, and feels the deal is overly harsh on the United States while countries like China and India are not held to anywhere near the same standards.

Why is renegotiation such a horrible thing if it could potentially hold other big polluters to higher standards?

 

'how much does it cost?' and 'how much will it change the climate?'

when accessing the deal, those are the main questions you should ask.

 

Because the commitments are voluntary. There is no guarantee any country will do anything. So the fact that Trump is saying its a bad deal means he probably doesn't know what it is.

 

That's not really true, even though it was voluntary, the US set goals that Trump believed were not in their best interest and he sought to walk away from the agreement as a result.

Why stay with the deal if it was merely symbolic and it wasn't going to accomplish anything while costing a substantial amount to go along with?

 

Makes you wonder why Trump and his Trumpanzees spend so much time on Breitbart, Fox News, etc instead of just reading the agreements they say are unfair. Truly idiocracy.

 

The people who have read the agreement are the ones on this forum that hate it. Who is citing how much it will cost and how much of an effect it will have on the climate? sure as hell is not the lefties on this board. In fact Trump went exactly through how much it will cost and how much it will help in his speech.

 

So what is unfair? Dazzle me.

 

the cost to Americans and the American economy Trump feels is unfair compared to the cost other countries are expected to pay (correctly so).