• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

My Note to President Trump on the Climate Accords 5-31-2017

J

JBG

DP Veteran
Joined
May 8, 2017
Messages
2,578
Reaction score
697
Location
New York City area
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
By way of background, I am a far-left Democrat who voted for Hillary. Nevertheless I oppose the Paris Climate Accords. See the note I posted on the White House website "e-mail" system:


===========================================================================

I am writing to support the Trump Administration's inclination to withdraw from the Paris Climate Accords ("Climate Accords"). I am by no means a conservative. I think that the Climate Accords have very little to do with climate and a lot to do with an incoherent hash of politically correct but impractical agendas. I will turn to the terms of the Climate Accords themselves but I note that they have a lengthy codicil on "gender equality." While that may be a praiseworthy goal it has little to do with climate.



The Climate Accords work by setting an unreachable U.S. goal of 40% reduction of greenhouse gases ("GHG") from 1990 levels. The year 1990 as a base year is itself grossly unfair to the U.S. but I digress. The failure to reach an unmeetable target will trigger an obligation to pay a large amount into a "climate adjustment fund" (the "Fund"). The Fund itself will offer full-time employment to a large contingent of bureaucrats. That to my mind is why Europe so strongly favors the Climate Accords. Such money as is distributed by the Fund for "climate adjustment" will go to Third and Fourth World "leaders" with little or no accountability for how it is spent. Can one, for example, seriously imagine leaders such as Assad, Kabila, or Mugabe using the money to protect their people from climate change.



This note purposely does not address whether or not climate change is real, or if real, if it is man-made. The Climate Accords will do little to change a single temperature on a single day in a single place. But they will cost the U.S. and its citizens lots of money, and possibly significant growth and employment. I urge you to ignore the bleats of the elites and withdraw the U.S. from the Climate Accords. And in the process make the withdrawal effective immediately, disregarding the unconstitutional and non-binding four year period placed on withdrawal. The Climate Accords were not ratified by Congress, are not a treaty and are not legislation.
 
This poster seems legit.
 
Breaking News! A poster at DP has an opinion about something!
 
JBG said:
By way of background, I am a far-left Democrat who voted for Hillary. Nevertheless I oppose the Paris Climate Accords. See the note I posted on the White House website "e-mail" system:


===========================================================================

I am writing to support the Trump Administration's inclination to withdraw from the Paris Climate Accords ("Climate Accords"). I am by no means a conservative. I think that the Climate Accords have very little to do with climate and a lot to do with an incoherent hash of politically correct but impractical agendas. I will turn to the terms of the Climate Accords themselves but I note that they have a lengthy codicil on "gender equality." While that may be a praiseworthy goal it has little to do with climate.



The Climate Accords work by setting an unreachable U.S. goal of 40% reduction of greenhouse gases ("GHG") from 1990 levels. The year 1990 as a base year is itself grossly unfair to the U.S. but I digress. The failure to reach an unmeetable target will trigger an obligation to pay a large amount into a "climate adjustment fund" (the "Fund"). The Fund itself will offer full-time employment to a large contingent of bureaucrats. That to my mind is why Europe so strongly favors the Climate Accords. Such money as is distributed by the Fund for "climate adjustment" will go to Third and Fourth World "leaders" with little or no accountability for how it is spent. Can one, for example, seriously imagine leaders such as Assad, Kabila, or Mugabe using the money to protect their people from climate change.



This note purposely does not address whether or not climate change is real, or if real, if it is man-made. The Climate Accords will do little to change a single temperature on a single day in a single place. But they will cost the U.S. and its citizens lots of money, and possibly significant growth and employment. I urge you to ignore the bleats of the elites and withdraw the U.S. from the Climate Accords. And in the process make the withdrawal effective immediately, disregarding the unconstitutional and non-binding four year period placed on withdrawal. The Climate Accords were not ratified by Congress, are not a treaty and are not legislation.
Click to expand...

So you are a coal man? The Accords do penalize coal use but the opposite is true of Natural gas which we have tons of. Why do you think Exxon/Mobil and Chevron back the accords?

In recent months, big business has lobbied fiercely in favor of the deal, which aims to end the fossil fuel era. Even major oil firms like Chevron (CVX) and ExxonMobil (XOM) back it.
Exxon CEO Darren Woods wrote a personal letter to Trump earlier this month, urging him to stick to the deal. The U.S., he said, is "well positioned to compete" with the agreement in place and staying in means "a seat at the negotiating table to ensure a level playing field."
It might appear to be a strange move for energy firms, but many like the agreement because it favors natural gas (which they produce) over dirtier coal.
It's more than just energy firms, though: Microsoft (MSFT, Tech30), Apple (AAPL, Tech30), Starbucks (SBUX), Gap (GPS), Nike (NKE), Google (GOOGL, Tech30), Adidas (ADDYY) and L'Oreal (LRLCY) all support continued U.S. involvement
Click to expand...

Paris climate accord: Big business urges Trump to stick with it - May. 29, 2017
 
JBG said:
By way of background, I am a far-left Democrat who voted for Hillary. Nevertheless I oppose the Paris Climate Accords. See the note I posted on the White House website "e-mail" system:


===========================================================================

I am writing to support the Trump Administration's inclination to withdraw from the Paris Climate Accords ("Climate Accords"). I am by no means a conservative. I think that the Climate Accords have very little to do with climate and a lot to do with an incoherent hash of politically correct but impractical agendas. I will turn to the terms of the Climate Accords themselves but I note that they have a lengthy codicil on "gender equality." While that may be a praiseworthy goal it has little to do with climate.



The Climate Accords work by setting an unreachable U.S. goal of 40% reduction of greenhouse gases ("GHG") from 1990 levels. The year 1990 as a base year is itself grossly unfair to the U.S. but I digress. The failure to reach an unmeetable target will trigger an obligation to pay a large amount into a "climate adjustment fund" (the "Fund"). The Fund itself will offer full-time employment to a large contingent of bureaucrats. That to my mind is why Europe so strongly favors the Climate Accords. Such money as is distributed by the Fund for "climate adjustment" will go to Third and Fourth World "leaders" with little or no accountability for how it is spent. Can one, for example, seriously imagine leaders such as Assad, Kabila, or Mugabe using the money to protect their people from climate change.



This note purposely does not address whether or not climate change is real, or if real, if it is man-made. The Climate Accords will do little to change a single temperature on a single day in a single place. But they will cost the U.S. and its citizens lots of money, and possibly significant growth and employment. I urge you to ignore the bleats of the elites and withdraw the U.S. from the Climate Accords. And in the process make the withdrawal effective immediately, disregarding the unconstitutional and non-binding four year period placed on withdrawal. The Climate Accords were not ratified by Congress, are not a treaty and are not legislation.
Click to expand...
Read 'em, and weep:

DP
 
JBG said:
I couldn't find a really good niche for this post.
Click to expand...

When in doubt post your thread in the general politics forum.
 
JBG said:
I couldn't find a really good niche for this post.
Click to expand...
I'm no mod, and it's not my job.

Just giving you some info to work with.
 
JBG said:
By way of background, I am a far-left Democrat who voted for Hillary. Nevertheless I oppose the Paris Climate Accords. See the note I posted on the White House website "e-mail" system:


===========================================================================

I am writing to support the Trump Administration's inclination to withdraw from the Paris Climate Accords ("Climate Accords"). I am by no means a conservative. I think that the Climate Accords have very little to do with climate and a lot to do with an incoherent hash of politically correct but impractical agendas. I will turn to the terms of the Climate Accords themselves but I note that they have a lengthy codicil on "gender equality." While that may be a praiseworthy goal it has little to do with climate.



The Climate Accords work by setting an unreachable U.S. goal of 40% reduction of greenhouse gases ("GHG") from 1990 levels. The year 1990 as a base year is itself grossly unfair to the U.S. but I digress. The failure to reach an unmeetable target will trigger an obligation to pay a large amount into a "climate adjustment fund" (the "Fund"). The Fund itself will offer full-time employment to a large contingent of bureaucrats. That to my mind is why Europe so strongly favors the Climate Accords. Such money as is distributed by the Fund for "climate adjustment" will go to Third and Fourth World "leaders" with little or no accountability for how it is spent. Can one, for example, seriously imagine leaders such as Assad, Kabila, or Mugabe using the money to protect their people from climate change.



This note purposely does not address whether or not climate change is real, or if real, if it is man-made. The Climate Accords will do little to change a single temperature on a single day in a single place. But they will cost the U.S. and its citizens lots of money, and possibly significant growth and employment. I urge you to ignore the bleats of the elites and withdraw the U.S. from the Climate Accords. And in the process make the withdrawal effective immediately, disregarding the unconstitutional and non-binding four year period placed on withdrawal. The Climate Accords were not ratified by Congress, are not a treaty and are not legislation.
Click to expand...

All quite interesting and I am personally not at all sure that the present is the right time to push into alternative energy. It is certainly good that the country did not make a major switch earlier, as the technology was still very expensive and inefficient. Now it is better. The thing is, you are quite right yhat the contract is expensive and poorly designed to achieve much real climate improvement. Obama did a lousy job here.

But I would not think it smart to exit the Paris Accord in the way we would be doing it. It will harm the international standing of the country much more than we really should and strengthen emerging alliances among the major players against the US. Exiting in this way will hurt us badly.

Note: as the first major country to support co2 reduction Germany was able to establish 1990 as a base year. This was important in order to show rapid improvement to the German voters to give them that winning feeling of being "Weltmeister". 1990 was good for the politicians, because the old East German industries were being closed at that time. Those production facilities were horribly inefficient and wasted huge quantities of enegy exhausting co2 over proportion. Closing this reduced the co2 exhaust rapidly while only doing, what had to be done anyway.
Co2 emissions continued to fall albeit at a slowed pace during the ca 7 years of economic stagnation following entry into the Euro currency area. The economic crisis after 2007 enabled a further reduction. Since 2010 the reductions have more or less stopped and actually increased last year.
 
joG said:
All quite interesting and I am personally not at all sure that the present is the right time to push into alternative energy. It is certainly good that the country did not make a major switch earlier, as the technology was still very expensive and inefficient. Now it is better. The thing is, you are quite right yhat the contract is expensive and poorly designed to achieve much real climate improvement. Obama did a lousy job here.
Click to expand...
Obama's idea of "negotiation" was to do whatever it took to be personally liked by his negotiating contra-parties. He was not really negotiating for the U.S.'s best interests in any cognizable manner.

joG said:
But I would not think it smart to exit the Paris Accord in the way we would be doing it. It will harm the international standing of the country much more than we really should and strengthen emerging alliances among the major players against the US. Exiting in this way will hurt us badly.
Click to expand...
Let's get one thing clear; the U.S. has been the donor country under all other agreements and under this one continues to be such. If a kid goes to school and throws money in the air of course he'll be well liked. If he goes one day without any money and/or asks for it back he won't be well liked. Such is "international standing" of this variety. Better not to have such great standing under the circumstances. It's basically a huge giveaway.

joG said:
Note: as the first major country to support co2 reduction Germany was able to establish 1990 as a base year. This was important in order to show rapid improvement to the German voters to give them that winning feeling of being "Weltmeister". 1990 was good for the politicians, because the old East German industries were being closed at that time. Those production facilities were horribly inefficient and wasted huge quantities of enegy exhausting co2 over proportion. Closing this reduced the co2 exhaust rapidly while only doing, what had to be done anyway.
Co2 emissions continued to fall albeit at a slowed pace during the ca 7 years of economic stagnation following entry into the Euro currency area. The economic crisis after 2007 enabled a further reduction. Since 2010 the reductions have more or less stopped and actually increased last year.
Click to expand...
Your analysis is quite good here. Germany negotiated smartly; it was not obligating itself to do much of anything. The year of 1990 definitely hurt the U.S. and Canada as both, for different reasons, were mired in recession whereas Europe and Japan were on the eve of falling apart economically. And other base years were assigned to other European countries to match their peaks. I think Hungary received 1986 but I could be wrong. The U.S. was definitely the joker in the deck.
 
The Paris Agreement is a voluntary agreement. No nation is forced to meet their voluntary emissions-reduction target, and there is no penalty if a nation does not meet its voluntary emissions-reduction target.

DBMtiAXVoAAFCpb.jpg
 
Rogue Valley said:
The Paris Agreement is a voluntary agreement. No nation is forced to meet their voluntary emissions-reduction target, and there is no penalty if a nation does not meet its voluntary emissions-reduction target.

DBMtiAXVoAAFCpb.jpg
Click to expand...
The trouble with voluntary agreements is that the West's free press eagerly reports every "violation" whereas governments of countries such as the DPRK, Cuba and China really don't care about public opinion.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom