• 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!

The Guardian: EU to Bypass Trump Administration

Lafayette

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 13, 2015
Messages
9,594
Reaction score
2,072
Location
France
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
From the Guardian (2 June): EU to bypass Trump administration after Paris climate agreement pullout - excerpt:
Brussels rejects Trump’s offer to renegotiate landmark deal, as global politicians, business leaders and US state governors criticise president

The European Union has rejected Donald Trump’s offer to renegotiate the Paris climate agreement and pledged instead to bypass Washington to work with US business leaders and state governors to implement the historic accord’s commitments.

Less than 24 hours after the US president announced his decision to withdraw from the 2015 agreement and strike a new, less ambitious deal with the rest of the world, Brussels declared its outright refusal to engage in such talks.

EU officials will instead cut out the White House to deal directly with the US states and major corporations, many of whom have already pledged to live by the terms forged in Paris.
In 2015, nearly 200 countries agreed in Paris to curb greenhouse gas emissions in order to prevent the runaway climate change that would occur should temperatures spiral 2C or more above the pre-industrial era.

In a worst case scenario, the US withdrawal could add 0.3C to global temperatures by the end of the century, the UN World Meteorological Organisation said.

Donald Tusk, the president of the European council, described Trump’s withdrawal from the Paris pact as a big mistake, but said the fight against climate change would continue with or without the US.

What next in the way of infamy from Donald Dork?

American coal-miners are jumping for joy. All 76,572 of them! The Donald is solidly behind carbon-molecule pollution of the atmosphere.

Yes! Go Donald !!!!!
 
From the Guardian (2 June): EU to bypass Trump administration after Paris climate agreement pullout - excerpt:
What next in the way of infamy from Donald Dork?

American coal-miners are jumping for joy. All 76,572 of them! The Donald is solidly behind carbon-molecule pollution of the atmosphere.

Yes! Go Donald !!!!!

This is textbook conservatism. The cities/states are free to follow whatever pollution guidelines they want. I hope that the EU remembers to collect those financial obligations that the Accords recommend.
 
This is textbook conservatism. The cities/states are free to follow whatever pollution guidelines they want. I hope that the EU remembers to collect those financial obligations that the Accords recommend.

If they were really serious, they'd be building a fleet of EU Arks for the coming torrents.
 
From the Union of Concerned Scientists

Environmental impacts of coal power: air pollution

Coal plants are the nation’s top source of carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions, the primary cause of global warming. In 2011, utility coal plants in the United States emitted a total of 1.7 billion tons of CO21. A typical coal plant generates 3.5 million tons of CO2 per year2.

Burning coal is also a leading cause of smog, acid rain, and toxic air pollution

Some emissions can be significantly reduced with readily available pollution controls, but most U.S. coal plants have not installed these technologies.

*Sulfur dioxide (SO2): Coal plants are the United States’ leading source of SO2 pollution, which takes a major toll on public health, including by contributing to the formation of small acidic particulates that can penetrate into human lungs and be absorbed by the bloodstream. SO2 also causes acid rain, which damages crops, forests, and soils, and acidifies lakes and streams. A typical uncontrolled coal plant emits 14,100 tons of SO2 per year. A typical coal plant with emissions controls, including flue gas desulfurization (smokestack scrubbers), emits 7,000 tons of SO2 per year.
*Nitrogen oxides (NOx): NOx pollution causes ground level ozone, or smog, which can burn lung tissue, exacerbate asthma, and make people more susceptible to chronic respiratory diseases. A typical uncontrolled coal plant emits 10,300 tons of NOx per year. A typical coal plant with emissions controls, including selective catalytic reduction technology, emits 3,300 tons of NOx per year.
*Particulate matter: Particulate matter (also referred to as soot or fly ash) can cause chronic bronchitis, aggravated asthma, and premature death, as well as haze obstructing visibility. A typical uncontrolled plan emits 500 tons of small airborne particles each year. Baghouses installed inside coal plant smokestacks can capture as much as 99 percent of the particulates.
*Mercury: Coal plants are responsible for more than half of the U.S. human-caused emissions of mercury, a toxic heavy metal that causes brain damage and heart problems. Just 1/70th of a teaspoon of mercury deposited on a 25-acre lake can make the fish unsafe to eat. A typical uncontrolled coal plants emits approximately 170 pounds of mercury each year. Activated carbon injection technology can reduce mercury emissions by up to 90 percent when combined with baghouses. ACI technology is currently found on just 8 percent of the U.S. coal fleet.
 
Hmm. I assume any number of people who were quite incensed about the Logan Act in (very) recent times will be all up in this.
 
If they were really serious, they'd be building a fleet of EU Arks for the coming torrents.

Simpler than that possibly, I can imagine the EU and other major economies working together around certain regulations and then trade being based on that.

A US that ignores those regs may find it difficult to trade with those economies. For example, if DT wants the US to export more cars then manufacturers will have to observe environmental concerns and build cars that can enter those markets.

All depends on how DT wishes the US to trade with the rest of the world.
 
If you feel a need to "reinterpret" the Constitution, you must know that what you want to do is unconstitutional..

The Constitution is neither the Bible nor written in concrete.

It can change and adapt, and if it hasn't that just might be root of our problems.

That is Most Certainly the case with the Electoral College. Five times it has made a PotUS of the popular-vote loser. This last time by the largest margin (2%) in history ...
 
The Constitution is neither the Bible nor written in concrete.

It can change and adapt, and if it hasn't that just might be root of our problems.

That is Most Certainly the case with the Electoral College. Five times it has made a PotUS of the popular-vote loser. This last time by the largest margin (2%) in history ...

This is the second time you've said the same silly thing about my sig, which not only has nothing to do with the topic, it has nothing to do with the point of my sig. I have no interest whatsoever in explaining it to you again. :roll:
 
This is the second time you've said the same silly thing about my sig, which not only has nothing to do with the topic, it has nothing to do with the point of my sig. I have no interest whatsoever in explaining it to you again.

Dear me, dear me! I offended a Patriot!

New England Patriots, right? Football Club ... ?
 
Simpler than that possibly, I can imagine the EU and other major economies working together around certain regulations and then trade being based on that.

A US that ignores those regs may find it difficult to trade with those economies. For example, if DT wants the US to export more cars then manufacturers will have to observe environmental concerns and build cars that can enter those markets.

All depends on how DT wishes the US to trade with the rest of the world.
And those who want to make it difficult for us may find we buy less from them. Besides, if the deals are bad for us already and we are mainly only buying...they need us more than we need them.
 
And those who want to make it difficult for us may find we buy less from them. Besides, if the deals are bad for us already and we are mainly only buying...they need us more than we need them.

That aint-gonna-happin.

The Chinese showed the way. The lowest-price will prompt Americans to buy even junk goods. And the rest of the world follows suit.

Just who do you think you are trying to fool ... ?
 
If you feel a need to "reinterpret" the Constitution, you must know that what you want to do is unconstitutional.
"AND WHEN THE LAST LAW WAS DOWN, AND THE DEVIL TURNED 'ROUND ON YOU, WHERE WOULD YOU HIDE, ROPER, THE LAWS ALL BEING FLAT?"

There is no law on earth that is not interpretive. There is no law on earth that need last forever, especially laws that were written more than 200 years ago.

All it takes is the will of the people to change the law. And that includes the Constitution.

Only the bible is set in concrete. And the Constitution is no bible!

But people like you confuse the two ...
 
Dear me, dear me! I offended a Patriot!

New England Patriots, right? Football Club ... ?

There is no law on earth that is not interpretive. There is no law on earth that need last forever, especially laws that were written more than 200 years ago.

All it takes is the will of the people to change the law. And that includes the Constitution.

Only the bible is set in concrete. And the Constitution is no bible!

But people like you confuse the two ...

:screwy
 
The European Union has rejected Donald Trump’s offer to renegotiate the Paris climate agreement and pledged instead to bypass Washington to work with US business leaders and state governors to implement the historic accord’s commitments.

I hope you don't mind, but I snipped all the irrelevant stuff from your post and kept the only thing that applies to your thread title.

So...

1. Businesses and States are free to do as they wish.

2. Businesses are focused, primarily, on profits. Everything they do is determined by their ability to generate profits. If they can cut emissions, keep their paying customers and turn a profit...cool. Go for it. I wonder, though, if there'll be enough of them to compensate for the removal of federal mandates.

3. States are constrained by their budgets. Everything THEY do is determined by the ability of their tax-base to support it. If they can cut emissions, keep their citizens happy and not go bankrupt...cool. Go for it. I wonder, though, if there'll be enough of them to compensate for the removal of federal mandates.

4. And then there is the matter of the Accord slush fund. I think it's unlikely those participating businesses and States will be able to contribute any significant percentage of the contribution the federal government won't be making anymore.

At the end of the day, I see this business/state bypass thing as nothing more than an empty gesture.
 
That aint-gonna-happin.

The Chinese showed the way. The lowest-price will prompt Americans to buy even junk goods. And the rest of the world follows suit.

Just who do you think you are trying to fool ... ?
Right. So the leftist world will buy from the Chinese and ignore the fact that the Chinese are the worlds foremost polluter and don't give a rats ass about climate change. You lefties are brilliant.
 
I hope you don't mind, but I snipped all the irrelevant stuff from your post and kept the only thing that applies to your thread title.

So...

1. Businesses and States are free to do as they wish.

2. Businesses are focused, primarily, on profits. Everything they do is determined by their ability to generate profits. If they can cut emissions, keep their paying customers and turn a profit...cool. Go for it. I wonder, though, if there'll be enough of them to compensate for the removal of federal mandates.

3. States are constrained by their budgets. Everything THEY do is determined by the ability of their tax-base to support it. If they can cut emissions, keep their citizens happy and not go bankrupt...cool. Go for it. I wonder, though, if there'll be enough of them to compensate for the removal of federal mandates.

4. And then there is the matter of the Accord slush fund. I think it's unlikely those participating businesses and States will be able to contribute any significant percentage of the contribution the federal government won't be making anymore.

At the end of the day, I see this business/state bypass thing as nothing more than an empty gesture.

The accord itself was an empty gesture, so more empty gestures from the ideology of empty gestures are certain to follow.
 
Simpler than that possibly, I can imagine the EU and other major economies working together around certain regulations and then trade being based on that.

A US that ignores those regs may find it difficult to trade with those economies. For example, if DT wants the US to export more cars then manufacturers will have to observe environmental concerns and build cars that can enter those markets.

All depends on how DT wishes the US to trade with the rest of the world.

The converse applies, as well.

German auto makers might like to sell cars in the US...where the regulations concerning environmental issues are not so bad, but those auto makers might be constrained by their own EU regulations...which will put them at a disadvantage to American auto makers. They will end up charging more for cars compared to prices for American cars. Furthermore, when they compete against American auto makers in non-EU/American markets the American cars can undercut their prices there.

I see a conflict brewing between the German auto makers and the EU in the very near future.
 
I hope you don't mind, but I snipped all the irrelevant stuff from your post and kept the only thing that applies to your thread title.

So...

1. Businesses and States are free to do as they wish.

2. Businesses are focused, primarily, on profits. Everything they do is determined by their ability to generate profits. If they can cut emissions, keep their paying customers and turn a profit...cool. Go for it. I wonder, though, if there'll be enough of them to compensate for the removal of federal mandates.

3. States are constrained by their budgets. Everything THEY do is determined by the ability of their tax-base to support it. If they can cut emissions, keep their citizens happy and not go bankrupt...cool. Go for it. I wonder, though, if there'll be enough of them to compensate for the removal of federal mandates.

4. And then there is the matter of the Accord slush fund. I think it's unlikely those participating businesses and States will be able to contribute any significant percentage of the contribution the federal government won't be making anymore.

At the end of the day, I see this business/state bypass thing as nothing more than an empty gesture.

Solid points Mycroft.

Consider the ultra left State of California. It was the first government in the world to label CO2 a GHG and adopt laws and regulations to limit it.

At one time, California had the most stringent environmental regulations in the World. It may still have that title.

Today, it is a state drowning in debt, facing significant deficits, and it has already pushed the envelope of taxation and fee collection to the top tier in the Nation. Extracting more blood and sweat from it's taxpayers is going to be difficult to do.

Where is it going to get the funds to "go it alone", when it is facing an inability to meet it's obligations, and it's tax revenue is dependent on a tiny group of taxpayers that is getting smaller and smaller.

You nailed it in your last sentence, just an empty gesture from frustrated globalists who are seeing the result of voters who are stopping them in their tracks.
 
Yeah, right. Screwy.

You have a screw loose, if that is all you've got for a rebuttal.

A silly little animated figure ...

:shrug: It's you who are taking your own thread off-topic to spew the same nonsense I already corrected you on months ago.
 
That aint-gonna-happin.

The Chinese showed the way. The lowest-price will prompt Americans to buy even junk goods. And the rest of the world follows suit.

Just who do you think you are trying to fool ... ?
There's just no persuading the foolish...is that what you are trying to say? I agree with you, it is why I am on the site less and less since President Trump was elected.

I responded to the premise of the other poster saying something to the effect that other nations will be less desirous of trade with us... your premise shows a desire for others, i e.,China, to sell to us and so avoids the whole premise that my answer addressed.

Want to start over and try something a bit more relevant?

Sent from my SM-J700M using Tapatalk
 
Simpler than that possibly, I can imagine the EU and other major economies working together around certain regulations and then trade being based on that.

A US that ignores those regs may find it difficult to trade with those economies. For example, if DT wants the US to export more cars then manufacturers will have to observe environmental concerns and build cars that can enter those markets.

All depends on how DT wishes the US to trade with the rest of the world.

Like California and their over-bearing regulations?

I doubt, with their unsteady economies, that the EU countries will put up much of a fuss.
 
Right. So the leftist world will buy from the Chinese and ignore the fact that the Chinese are the worlds foremost polluter and don't give a rats ass about climate change. You lefties are brilliant.

Yep, that's why we Lefties thought up the Paris Agreement, and you Rightist Replicants LOVE Donald's withdrawl from the agreement.

Y'all are happier now than a pig-in-doodoo?

Great! The stench goes well with your thinking ...
 
Yep, that's why we Lefties thought up the Paris Agreement, and you Rightist Replicants LOVE Donald's withdrawl from the agreement.

Y'all are happier now than a pig-in-doodoo?

Great! The stench goes well with your thinking ...
What does that even mean? The Paris Agreement was meaningless. How do you not understand that?
 
Back
Top Bottom