• 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!

Scoop: Trump is pulling U.S. out of Paris climate deal

eohrnberger said:
Or was it $17T? Yeah, that might have been it.

Regardless, it's stupid for the US to pay this money, or rather, give it away without any sort of remuneration back.
Click to expand...

I can not find this number anywhere....Can you post a source?
 
Rogue Valley said:
Trumps USA will join devastated war-torn Syria and Nicaragua - the poorest country in Central America, as the only nations on Earth not participating in the Paris Agreement.
Click to expand...

I guess it'd have been better to have sided with Russia and Iran??? Cambodia and Laos? I mean, really, what's your logic here?
 
longview said:
Since the Paris Climate deal was never ratified by the Senate, it was never a real agreement to begin with.
Since the US portion of the deal was based only on the say so of the seated President, the current seated President
can without any over site, withdraw from said agreement.
Click to expand...

Agreed. Obama getting us into the Paris Accord was not legal to begin with. For any Treaty to be enforceable, it has to be ratified by two thirds of the Senate. Obama was a rogue president.
 
ObamacareFail said:
Agreed. Obama getting us into the Paris Accord was not legal to begin with. For any Treaty to be enforceable, it has to be ratified by two thirds of the Senate. Obama was a rogue president.
Click to expand...

LMAO. I be you hardly even noticed that he was black as well......:)
 
Vetplus40 said:
LMAO. I be you hardly even noticed that he was black as well......:)
Click to expand...
Do you think Senator Byrd did?

Now, therefore, be it

Resolved, That it is the sense of the Senate that--

(1) the United States should not be a signatory to any protocol to, or other agreement regarding, the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change of 1992, at negotiations in Kyoto in December 1997, or thereafter, which would--

(A) mandate new commitments to limit or reduce greenhouse gas emissions for the Annex I Parties, unless the protocol or other agreement also mandates new specific scheduled commitments to limit or reduce greenhouse gas emissions for Developing Country Parties within the same compliance period, or

(B) would result in serious harm to the economy of the United States; and

(2) any such protocol or other agreement which would require the advice and consent of the Senate to ratification should be accompanied by a detailed explanation of any legislation or regulatory actions that may be required to implement the protocol or other agreement and should also be accompanied by an analysis of the detailed financial costs and other impacts on the economy of the United States which would be incurred by the implementation of the protocol or other agreement.

You should know what you are on about.

The democrats voted with republicans unanimously to block any unilateral action by ANY president. Byrd-Hagel was signed in 1997. Obama's skin tone has nothing to do with it.
 
LunaRose said:
I can not find this number anywhere....Can you post a source?
Click to expand...

Well,
the president pledged a dramatic reduction in U.S. emissions: 26 to 28 percent below their 2005 level by 2025. To further grease the skids of international diplomacy, he committed the United States to lead the transfer of $100 billion in annual “climate finance” from the developed world to the developing countries that are pledging nothing.
Paris Climate Agreement: Americans Foot Bill, No Effect on Climate | National Review
Click to expand...

$100B annually? WTF for?

Are the US tax payers so flush with cash, so unburdened with costs and problems that they can afford to just blow $100B annually to the winds?
:screwy

**** that!

When every American has a job, and every American has $10K in the bank, then we might talk about $100B give away.
 
eohrnberger said:
Or was it $17T? Yeah, that might have been it.

Regardless, it's stupid for the US to pay this money, or rather, give it away without any sort of remuneration back.
Click to expand...

31aad7c2729944042ad930264142eaf8.png
 
Threegoofs said:
31aad7c2729944042ad930264142eaf8.png
Click to expand...

The US is already doing it without being in this agreement.

I've heard reported that the US has reduced its emissions AND have kept the energy prices at 1/2 what they are in Europe.
That's reasonable. That's the free market in action.

Giving away $100B of tax payer's money annually, is just irresponsible with the tax payer's money, and frankly, just stupid.
 
Trump is cutting off the United States overused financial tit from the rest of the world.
 
Trump’s NOT GOING TO LET THE WORLD STEAL FROM US ANYMORE. The folks who have been taking money out of our pockets are pissed off... Love it President Trump.


Stuff it Angela. Stuff it CNN. In your face gloBULLists!
 
Last edited:
eohrnberger said:
The US is already doing it without being in this agreement.

I've heard reported that the US has reduced its emissions AND have kept the energy prices at 1/2 what they are in Europe.
That's reasonable. That's the free market in action.

Giving away $100B of tax payer's money annually, is just irresponsible with the tax payer's money, and frankly, just stupid.
Click to expand...
Every time I see someone post that cartoon I can't help but laugh at the stupidity behind it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
eohrnberger said:
The US is already doing it without being in this agreement.

I've heard reported that the US has reduced its emissions AND have kept the energy prices at 1/2 what they are in Europe.
That's reasonable. That's the free market in action.

Giving away $100B of tax payer's money annually, is just irresponsible with the tax payer's money, and frankly, just stupid.
Click to expand...

So we went from 75 Trillion to 17 Trillion to 100 Billion in a few hours.

Wonder how much it will drop by tomorrow?

The funniest thing is you believe any number that shows up.
 
Cigar said:
Source: Axios

President Trump has made his decision to withdraw from the Paris climate accord, according to two sources with direct knowledge of the decision. Details on how the withdrawal will be executed are being worked out by a small team including EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt. They're deciding on whether to initiate a full, formal withdrawal — which could take 3 years — or exit the underlying United Nations Treaty, which would be faster but more extreme.

Read more: https://www.axios.com/scoop-trump-is-pulling-u-s-out-of-paris-climate-deal-2427773025.html


Had Doand Trump's father pulled out, we'd all be better off. :doh
Click to expand...

whats the damn scoop?

he promised he would do this
 
Threegoofs said:
So we went from 75 Trillion to 17 Trillion to 100 Billion in a few hours.

Wonder how much it will drop by tomorrow?

The funniest thing is you believe any number that shows up.
Click to expand...

I'll admit that I didn't recall the number correctly. Sue me, but I never stated that as a fact either, I clearly stated that I wasn't sure about it.

Regardless, I don't see any rationalization possible that the US government should 'give away' hard earned tax payer monies on what amounts to little more than global wealth redistribution scam.

Something more fair, perhaps it'd be worth talking about, and seeking common ground for an agreement. Certainly not this.
 
eohrnberger said:
I'll admit that I didn't recall the number correctly. Sue me, but I never stated that as a fact either, I clearly stated that I wasn't sure about it.

Regardless, I don't see any rationalization possible that the US government should 'give away' hard earned tax payer monies on what amounts to little more than global wealth redistribution scam.

Something more fair, perhaps it'd be worth talking about, and seeking common ground for an agreement. Certainly not this.
Click to expand...

You took on face value that we would be giving half of our GDP (not federal budget...GD ****ing P!!) to other nations.

You later thought that 5% of our GDP (that's higher than our defense budget!) was the right number.

And now you expect me to treat you as someone who has a rational argument.
 
eohrnberger said:
I also heard reported, but have not yet been able to verify, that it commits the US to pay $75T over 10 years to the UN to dole out to other nations.
Click to expand...

And you believed it? 75 trillion in a decade, and you repeat it without verifying? And you expect to be taken seriously by anyone who can do basic math?
 
Threegoofs said:
You took on face value that we would be giving half of our GDP (not federal budget...GD ****ing P!!) to other nations.

You later thought that 5% of our GDP (that's higher than our defense budget!) was the right number.

And now you expect me to treat you as someone who has a rational argument.
Click to expand...

He never has, and he never will.
 
OlNate said:
Hrrmm... Well, I'll wait for Longview to respond, as clearly I'm not the expert on this. I have a feeling that whatever energy strategy we employ, it will need to be diverse...putting all our eggs in one basket with fossil fuel as got us into the mess we're in, so I think it's good to investigate all options.
Click to expand...
Goofs denies that such technology exists, in spite of the Navy and Sunfire being issued patents for their processes.
His basic problem is that the solution is not exactly the IPCC solution.
There was good talk on the state of this technology at Hannover Messe this year,
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6ytslUSxYSA
The bottom line is that the technology is possible, and we have not heard from the companies who employ
most of the petrochemical PHd's in the world, and have large quantities of research dollars.
Here is a good overview on the Navy's work by Dr. Heather Willauer of NRL.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YUUMz3Uv0ps

I do not see synthetic fuels as being the final step towards sustainability, but an important middle step.
Many decades on, we may still be carrying hydrogen around in a hydrocarbon container,
but just to ease storage. Simple reformers can strip off the hydrogen for use in fuel cells.
So a jet could have an electric fan engine, with the power coming from a fuel cell, whose hydrogen came
from an easy to move around liquid fuel. The advantage would be about a 35% efficiency improvement.
DOE says a 50% improvement, but I think that may be a bit optimistic.
https://www.hydrogen.energy.gov/pdfs/doe_fuelcell_factsheet.pdf
 
Vetplus40 said:
LMAO. I be you hardly even noticed that he was black as well......:)
Click to expand...

That's at least twice that I have seen you bringing race into an argument without any reason for doing so. Are you suggesting that any Obama should be exempt for criticism because he is black? That would make you racist.
 
VanceMack said:
Do you think Senator Byrd did?

Now, therefore, be it

Resolved, That it is the sense of the Senate that--

(1) the United States should not be a signatory to any protocol to, or other agreement regarding, the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change of 1992, at negotiations in Kyoto in December 1997, or thereafter, which would--

(A) mandate new commitments to limit or reduce greenhouse gas emissions for the Annex I Parties, unless the protocol or other agreement also mandates new specific scheduled commitments to limit or reduce greenhouse gas emissions for Developing Country Parties within the same compliance period, or

(B) would result in serious harm to the economy of the United States; and

(2) any such protocol or other agreement which would require the advice and consent of the Senate to ratification should be accompanied by a detailed explanation of any legislation or regulatory actions that may be required to implement the protocol or other agreement and should also be accompanied by an analysis of the detailed financial costs and other impacts on the economy of the United States which would be incurred by the implementation of the protocol or other agreement.

You should know what you are on about.

The democrats voted with republicans unanimously to block any unilateral action by ANY president. Byrd-Hagel was signed in 1997. Obama's skin tone has nothing to do with it.
Click to expand...

He does not care about any of that. He is just very limited in material to respond with. Therefore he resorts to the race card if Obama receives any criticism at all.
 
Threegoofs said:
You took on face value that we would be giving half of our GDP (not federal budget...GD ****ing P!!) to other nations.

You later thought that 5% of our GDP (that's higher than our defense budget!) was the right number.

And now you expect me to treat you as someone who has a rational argument.
Click to expand...

I am sure he is not losing any sleep over how you treat his arguments.
 
ObamacareFail said:
He does not care about any of that. He is just very limited in material to respond with. Therefore he resorts to the race card if Obama receives any criticism at all.
Click to expand...
Theres a whole lot of them that have just absolutely abandoned reason. Its really kind of amazing to watch.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom