Trump Expected to Pull Out of Paris Climate Agreement

It's now confirmed you have no clue what you're talking about.

 

CO2 is a greenhouse gas. When you turn you car or truck ignitiion, you tailpipe emits CO2, SOX, NOX, and particulate matter, all of which are greenhouse gases and contributors as well as contributors to smog/air pollution.

LOL..... you are starting to realize the structure of the agreement..... I can see it. You are slowly understanding there wasn't anything to be gained from leaving the agreement.

 

How so? It's much cheaper to produce and transport natural gas in the US. The infrastructure has been there on the gulf coast.....and the LNG export terminals will soon be coming online.

 

Canada is awash in low cost natural gas. Educate yourself.

 

As is the US, except we have the infrastructure to move it and soon to export it..... educate yourself.

The next LNG terminal to come online will be in the Sabine Pass in Louisiana. What else ya got since you couldn't respond to anything else?

 

It's a real shame that Trump wouldn't continue to help the growing industry of solar power. He's worried about saving the jobs of the coal industry. Right now converting solar power to electrical energy than coal, gas, and oil combined.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/niallm...al-and-gas-combined-infographic/#613d2df92800
Arby's also employs more than the coal industry. JC Penny's employs more people than the coal industry.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...more-people-than-coal/?utm_term=.1f2b22ab150c
http://jezebel.com/j-c-penney-employs-more-people-than-coal-mines-do-1793896058

We shouldn't just forget or abandon people who work in the coal industry. We should help them transition to new work. We certainly take steps to hamper growing industries like wind and solar power such as Trump just did.

The thing is that the U.S. will continue to produce more wind, solar, natural gas than coal, but it's sad that now we won't have a seat at the table to discuss and help shape that future. All Trump really did was forfeit a chance for the United Stated States to preserve its leadership.

It's amazing that on his trip to our NATO allies, Trump told the European nations that they needed to contribute more and be more independent because the U.S. didn't want to keep doing that. Then Merkel gives a speech stating that Germany and Europe won't rely on the United States as much anymore and will contribute more themselves, and for some reason, Trump got angry about it. LOL.

It was a pitiful outing for the president of the United States and made our nation look weaker than ever.

 

I have worked in the Canadian natural gas industry in the past, in Calgary. I am arguing with a Kindergartner here. You claimed that Canada does not have low cost natural gas. That is a ridiculously wrong comment. Go educate yourself, I'm done trying to help you.

 

I think sabine pass started exporting last year.

 

Is that what I claimed, or do you just have a reading comprehension problem?

LOL.... says the person who has to selectively reply to my statements.

 

You are right, it started exporting last year. The next several projects currently under construction are in TX, LA, and a small one in Maryland.

 

Which is just an indication of how horribly inefficient solar is. In the last 12 months, coal and natural gas produced 43X more electricity than solar in the US.

https://www.eia.gov/electricity/monthly/epm_table_grapher.cfm?t=epmt_1_1

The US only produces more natural gas than coal which still remains the #2 source of electricity by a considerable margin over nuclear.

The ironic thing is that Germany is doing a good job of screwing up its electricity grid by pushing hard into solar and wind, resources that aren't very good in Germany. It seen its retail electricity price spike to among the most expensive in the world and because it chose coal over nuclear, it's renewables have barely impacted its CO2 emissions.

 

It's not surprising at all that resources like the sun and wind which are by nature varied in their consistency wouldn't produce as consistently as coal or oil. That makes perfect sense. What's cool is that the industry is already grown so much bigger and is continuing to do so in order to improve efficiency.

It's kind of like when cars first came about they weren't as efficient as using horses. As the industry grew and infrastructure improved along with it, the cars surpassed the efficiency of horse and carriage in most instances.

 

This is a pretty remarkably ignorant comment.

First of all, isn't it a good thing that the US will continue to produce more wind, solar, and natural gas than coal? Doesn't that mean that the stupid whining and freaking out that has been done lately is nothing but r****ded BS?

Secondly, any table that the US doesn't have a seat at isn't a table that matters globally.....and pulling out of this non-binding agreement doesn't affect the leadership role of the US in any way whatsoever. You are just parroting propaganda right now and it's kind of embarrassing. Do better, be better.

 

Yes, it's a good thing. Which is why the U.S. would be served to stay in the Paris Accord and having a seat at the table. They used to be leaders. Now they don't have a voice in the conversation anymore.

 

They still are leaders, even if you wish that wasn't the case due to political reasons. Again, any table that the US doesn't have a seat at isn't a table that matters. Throw a temper tantrum about that if you like, but that's just how it is kiddo. The reason why people are flipping out about this is because they know the "table" that is the Paris accords is meaningless without the US because the US was the only major contributor to CO2 emissions that was likely to seriously attempt to meet goals....even though 2 of the top 3 largest emitters of CO2 don't really have to do anything till 2025 or 2030....and one of them wanted to be paid to even make a non binding promise to try and then they make plans for 370 new coal burning plants...

I think you think too much of the Paris accords, it was nonsense to begin with because it wasn't going to really do anything to begin with. It was the equivalent of wearing a wristband or tweeting a hash tag and pretending like you actually accomplished something.

 

You can keep saying that, but it isn't based on anything real in regards to climate change.

 

It really is kiddo. In the real world nothing gets done without the US being involved meaning they have to have a seat if anything is to be accomplished. You deny that only because you are against the current president and thus the entire country at the moment, but if you ever start to think clearly again, you'll realize the truth of what I'm saying.

Not only is the US by far the richest country in the world, they are also one of the largest contributors to CO2. Those 2 factors means that the US ALWAYS gets a seat at any table that matters in any way, especially when it comes to climate change. Again, sorry kiddo, the facts just make an ass of you.

 

The Dutch government and the Dutch people have an inherent interest in anything that could lead to a rise in sea level. Understandably so, as you know better than anyone here, being Dutch yourself, arno_ed. I keep thinking that there is a great future ahead for Dutch engineering, with projects coming up around the world (and I am only being a little sarcastic!). New York, Miami, Houston, New Orleans, Washington, D.C. (Closer to sea level than most people realize) are just a few examples. That's just in this country.

Being the world leaders in the technology of holding back the sea, I'm don't doubt that all of you are keeping a close eye on climate change and the effect it is having and will continue to have in the future. I'm also of the opinion that a large majority of the Dutch believe in climate change. Folks here should consider that carefully. The Netherlands is very wealthy and for hundreds of years has held back the sea from a land largely below sea level, whereas a poor South Asian country like Bangladesh is having an increasing number of disastrous floods and is without the financial means, much less the engineering talent, to develop a sophisticated series of dikes and the other means you have to control water (I've seen some astonishing engineering achievements in your country that would take too long to explain here). People living on many of the islands in the Indian and Pacific Oceans are watching their land shrink in size as the water creeps up, an obvious example of the rise in sea level.

And we have this fool in the White House.

 

That's easy to do when you have much more power generating capacity of coal and natural gas..... I mean seriously.....?

Which emits significantly less greenhouse gases than coal. The US will continue to add gas, wind, and solar over coal, as older plants simply go out of commission.

It's not the most expensive in the world, in fact there are times when Germany produces too much electricity which causes prices to go negative, happens in Texas and California. The issue is that Germany expanded renewable too quickly as you need to have a balance of energy. Here's MIT on Germany: https://www.technologyreview.com/s/601514/germany-runs-up-against-the-limits-of-renewables/

 

Right, coal and natural gas are far superior forms of energy that they produce far more energy per employee and far reliably than unreliable, expensive forms like wind and solar that will never power a modern economy.

I was referring to retail prices, paid by customers that includes all the taxes and subsidies needed to pay for Germany's Energiewende. Wholesale prices being negative are the results of using ideology rather than engineering to construct an electricity grid by trying to force the use of solar and wind, which often produces electricity when demand is low and often doesn't produce electricity when demand is high.