• 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!

We should be glad the US is out of the Paris Climate Agreement

Jack Hays

Traveler
Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 28, 2013
Messages
94,823
Reaction score
28,342
Location
Williamsburg, Virginia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Never has such an inconsequential agreement been the cause of so much silly alarmism. Bjorn Lomborg demonstrated quite some time ago that the Paris Agreement would have virtually no impact but would impose enormous costs. Getting out was the right thing for the US to do.

Opinion / Paris Climate Accord
We should be glad the US is out of the Paris Climate Agreement

Foreword: Following President Trump’s exit from the Paris Climate Treaty, a number of states, cities, universities, companies and institutions formed a “We are still in” consortium. Its members insist that they remain committed to Paris and are determined to reduce carbon dioxide emissions and prevent climate change. As our article explains, this is all puffery and belief in tooth fairies. The issues and questions we raise ought to shame and embarrass WASI members – for spending countless billions of other people’s dollars to prevent an undetectable and irrelevant 0.01 degrees of global warming. We also ask whether jurisdictions within WASI states can take the “progressive” route and declare themselves sanctuary cities or counties, to protect their jobs and families against WASI dictates. Perhaps our article will persuade more Americans to make their voices heard, ask hard questions – and start resisting The Anti-Trump Resistance. . . . .
 
That's probably because the agreement was nothing more than countries trying to make their plans to control the economy sound noble.
 
That's probably because the agreement was nothing more than countries trying to make their plans to control the economy sound noble.

Man, I am so glad the economy is not controlled here in america.
 
Man, I am so glad the economy is not controlled here in america.

It's ironic that the plan was filled with corporatism and yet it was liberals and progressives that supported it.
 
It's ironic that the plan was filled with corporatism and yet it was liberals and progressives that supported it.

No, it is not ironic at all, everything related to american society is corporatism.
 
Man, I am so glad the economy is not controlled here in america.
When you get past the snarky one liners (and assuming you have a basic understanding of OUR government and practices and understand no president can enter into any agreements on the countries behalf), did you REALLY support the PCA? And be honest...before Trump pulled the US out of the PCA, did you even have the first clue what was in it?
 
Never has such an inconsequential agreement been the cause of so much silly alarmism. Bjorn Lomborg demonstrated quite some time ago that the Paris Agreement would have virtually no impact but would impose enormous costs. Getting out was the right thing for the US to do.

Opinion / Paris Climate Accord
We should be glad the US is out of the Paris Climate Agreement

Foreword: Following President Trump’s exit from the Paris Climate Treaty, a number of states, cities, universities, companies and institutions formed a “We are still in” consortium. Its members insist that they remain committed to Paris and are determined to reduce carbon dioxide emissions and prevent climate change. As our article explains, this is all puffery and belief in tooth fairies. The issues and questions we raise ought to shame and embarrass WASI members – for spending countless billions of other people’s dollars to prevent an undetectable and irrelevant 0.01 degrees of global warming. We also ask whether jurisdictions within WASI states can take the “progressive” route and declare themselves sanctuary cities or counties, to protect their jobs and families against WASI dictates. Perhaps our article will persuade more Americans to make their voices heard, ask hard questions – and start resisting The Anti-Trump Resistance. . . . .

I heard a program this morning that a method has been patented to retrieve co2 out of the air efficiently and is expected to inexpensive enough at an industrial level to reduce atmospheric co2 to prior concentratiins. So maybe the pro Paris countries and cities will be able to install machines to save us all.

;)
 
When you get past the snarky one liners (and assuming you have a basic understanding of OUR government and practices and understand no president can enter into any agreements on the countries behalf), did you REALLY support the PCA? And be honest...before Trump pulled the US out of the PCA, did you even have the first clue what was in it?

Your economic and political systems are run by concentrated corporate power and wealth, if you feel compelled to shout that fact down, carry on. YOUR govt is like any other empire that has proceeded it, complete with cannibalization of society to support endless expansion and military adventurism.
 
I heard a program this morning that a method has been patented to retrieve co2 out of the air efficiently and is expected to inexpensive enough at an industrial level to reduce atmospheric co2 to prior concentratiins. So maybe the pro Paris countries and cities will be able to install machines to save us all.

;)

that can have a dangerous effect. co2 is required in the atmosphere to keep us alive.
these people are messing with things that they honestly do not understand or care to.

all they can say is co2 is evil without realizing how vital it is not only to humans but our eco system in general.

this is like that guy that wanted to dump a substance he developed into hurricanes to create wind shear and kill them.
messing with natural like that has drastic consequences. sure hurricanes cause a lot of damage but they are needed and
they serve a specific purpose. without them who knows what the environmental consequences would occur.

the consequence of good intentions applies here and these eco engineers scare the hell out of me.
 
that can have a dangerous effect. co2 is required in the atmosphere to keep us alive.
these people are messing with things that they honestly do not understand or care to.

all they can say is co2 is evil without realizing how vital it is not only to humans but our eco system in general.

this is like that guy that wanted to dump a substance he developed into hurricanes to create wind shear and kill them.
messing with natural like that has drastic consequences. sure hurricanes cause a lot of damage but they are needed and
they serve a specific purpose. without them who knows what the environmental consequences would occur.

the consequence of good intentions applies here and these eco engineers scare the hell out of me.

You think liberals might overdue this too?
 
Your economic and political systems are run by concentrated corporate power and wealth, if you feel compelled to shout that fact down, carry on. YOUR govt is like any other empire that has proceeded it, complete with cannibalization of society to support endless expansion and military adventurism.
I asked you specifically about the PCA. You did what everyone does...avoid talking about the actual PCA and what its actual value is.

Not shocked.
 
You think liberals might overdue this too?

I think anyone that signs onto stuff like this without thinking of the consequences or impacts is not someone that should be in charge of it.
so what happens when they pull too much co2 out of the air and send us into an ice age.

or crop yields falter due to not enough co2 to pull in.

these are all threats and risks that have to be addressed. something I honestly don't think they care about.
co2 levels in the past where way higher and forest thrived. with better food sources so do animals.

eco engineering is bad more so when you are not sure of the consequences that can result or if it is even needed to begin with.
 
I heard a program this morning that a method has been patented to retrieve co2 out of the air efficiently and is expected to inexpensive enough at an industrial level to reduce atmospheric co2 to prior concentratiins. So maybe the pro Paris countries and cities will be able to install machines to save us all.

;)

We already have that in place. It's called trees.
 
I think anyone that signs onto stuff like this without thinking of the consequences or impacts is not someone that should be in charge of it.
so what happens when they pull too much co2 out of the air and send us into an ice age.

or crop yields falter due to not enough co2 to pull in.

these are all threats and risks that have to be addressed. something I honestly don't think they care about.
co2 levels in the past where way higher and forest thrived. with better food sources so do animals.

eco engineering is bad more so when you are not sure of the consequences that can result or if it is even needed to begin with.

I thought anyone that has thought about the topic would realise this, más o menos.
 
I think anyone that signs onto stuff like this without thinking of the consequences or impacts is not someone that should be in charge of it.
so what happens when they pull too much co2 out of the air and send us into an ice age.

or crop yields falter due to not enough co2 to pull in.

these are all threats and risks that have to be addressed. something I honestly don't think they care about.
co2 levels in the past where way higher and forest thrived. with better food sources so do animals.

eco engineering is bad more so when you are not sure of the consequences that can result or if it is even needed to begin with.

Nature, for billions of years has evolved to generally get it right. When there is too much CO2, more trees grow. Providing oxygen and food. More oxygen and food? More animals.

The carbon and oxygen are relatively stable. Neither is created or destroyed.
 
Nope. They don't extract atmospheric co2.

We were talking about land.

Forrest more likely. But those trees need so much land.
 
We were talking about land.

Forrest more likely. But those trees need so much land.

Oh. That. I did wonder about how many trees one would need to bring co2 down to pre industrial levels vs factories for atmospheric extraction of co2.
 
Oh. That. I did wonder about how many trees one would need to bring co2 down to pre industrial levels vs factories for atmospheric extraction of co2.

That number is probably available somewhere. I would say that it would depend on a lot of factors including the specific point in time you define as pre industrial and the type of tree. Among others.

Generally these radical new inventions appear as articles in the pages of Mechanics Illustrated and the like, never to be heard from again.
 
Majorities in 49 of the 50 states support the Paris agreement. I'm glad to see that some of the states are continuing to abide by the accord. I urged my Senators to do the same. A global solution is required for a global problem.
 
Majorities in 49 of the 50 states support the Paris agreement. I'm glad to see that some of the states are continuing to abide by the accord. I urged my Senators to do the same. A global solution is required for a global problem.

The Paris Agreement is inconsequential in terms of climate.
 
Majorities in 49 of the 50 states support the Paris agreement. I'm glad to see that some of the states are continuing to abide by the accord. I urged my Senators to do the same. A global solution is required for a global problem.

What does the PCA actually achieve? How does allowing the major polluting countries on the planet to continue for 30 years unabated help stop pollution in any way shape or form? And since you believe majorities in 49 of the 59 states support the PCA why did Obama not submit this as a treaty, rather than signing his name to a document he KNEW was unenforceable?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Back
Top Bottom