• 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!

One graphic $ays it all: Who actually paid in to the Paris Green Climate fund

holbritter said:
I find it hard to believe that China is almost last on that list. Haven't you seen the air around there and the masks they wear? I don't see that here in the US.
Click to expand...

Not surprising at all. China has a lot of people who have nothing which means there carbon foot print is nothing.

On the other hand the US has lots of millionaires with carbon foot prints well over 100 times the average person in this country. You know the rich, 2 faced, do I say not as I do, people like Whoopi and her Hollywood friends who have massive carbon footprints lecturing the average American.
 
Mithrae said:
It's disappointing that Russia has not yet chosen to pull its weight in international climate change efforts: So is that the standard by which to make America great again?

Just out of interest, I checked Wikipedia for the CO2 emissions per capita of a few countries of interest in the years 1980 (Googled some USSR data in place of Russia for that year), 1995 and the most recent data in 2013. An average of those data points gives a very vague idea of each countries cumulative per capita emissions over time, their actual historical per capita contributions to the problem of global warming:
Code: 
		1980	1995	2013		Average
United States	20.8	19.3	16.4		18.83
Canada		18	15.9	13.5		15.80
Australia	15	15.6	16.3		15.63
Russia		~12.8	11	12.5		~12
Germany			10.6	9.2		9.90
Norway		9.3	7.7	11.7		9.57
Japan		8.1	9.4	9.8		9.10
South Korea	3.5	8.3	11.8		7.87
Sweden		8.6	6.2	4.6		6.47
Spain		5.7	6.1	5.1		5.63
China		1.5	2.2	7.6		3.77
India		0.5	0.8	1.6		0.97

I did that because the New York Times (which the graphic in the OP lists as one of its sources) provides a breakdown of some countries' financial contribution to the solution per capita:

What Is the Green Climate Fund and How Much Does the U.S. Actually Pay? | New York Times

Industrialized countries have voluntarily pledged $10.3 billion since 2013 to help poorer nations reduce greenhouse gas emissions and address the effects of climate change. The United States has pledged by far the most — $3 billion, twice that of the second-largest pledger, Japan. But on a per-capita basis, many other countries have offered more than the United States. Swedes, for example, will contribute nearly $60 each.

View attachment 67218472​

Not surprisingly, it seems that countries which are among the biggest polluters such as the US, Canada and Australia also happen to have the most powerful anti-science 'scepticism' and lobbies, and therefore somewhat underwhelming gestures towards the solution.

But still better than Russia... at least until now :(
Click to expand...

So all this talk from Obama and investment in green energy was a lie. WOW!
 
Trippy Trekker said:
Rev, until DP adds a webcam feature, you cannot see me bow to you. Not that everyone here at DP recognizes your immeasurable value.

Decades ago, when I worked in a couple of high-end country clubs and restaurants, can you believe some of the employees discreetly put unspeakable things in select people's food?
Click to expand...




And lots of marriage propositions.....
 
ReverendHellh0und said:
And lots of marriage propositions.....
Click to expand...

Wish I may, wish I might... feel like Rev for just one night! Picture me on my knees, bowing to you three times faster than normal.

When did you transition from a poor Jersey kid to a Semi-God I.T. magnate?

Your meteoric rise in stature reminds me of the Paypal founder. Not the gay one, Peter Thiel.... but the SpaceX one, Elon Musk.
 
holbritter said:
Cutting it down in its most simple way, this is the way I see it. Contributing money does not and will not reduce the CO2 emissions. A developing country is not a big polluter, therefore, they don't need that much money to change what they are already not doing. Now show me a chart that identifies who the "developing country" is and their numbers and I might think otherwise. Right now, I just don't get it as far as the money goes.

The US is not going to stop trying to reduce their CO2 emissions just because we pulled out of this agreement. Come up with a deal that doesn't involve billions in taxpayer money and I'm sure we'd be on board. The whole money part is where this agreement start to sound like a pyramid scheme, and I'm very happy we are not part of it.

What we spend on our military doesn't have anything to do with it. We spend enormous amounts for other things as well. Do we have to add to our spending? The way the world is today, I certainly don't want to reduce our military one bit.
Click to expand...

Are you aware the Paris Agreement's mechanisms are self-imposed, entirely voluntary, and unenforced? And you call it a pyramid scheme. Do you know what a pyramid scheme is? Because that comparison is just absurd.

And what do you mean contributing money doesn't reduce CO2 emissions? What do you think gets done with that money? Cocaine and hooker parties?

edit: for the record, I am also ok with taxpayer-funded parties with cocaine and hookers. As long as I'm invited.
 
Last edited:
Deuce said:
Are you aware the Paris Agreement's mechanisms are self-imposed, entirely voluntary, and unenforced? And you call it a pyramid scheme. Do you know what a pyramid scheme is? Because that comparison is just absurd.

And what do you mean contributing money doesn't reduce CO2 emissions? What do you think gets done with that money? Cocaine and hooker parties?

edit: for the record, I am also ok with taxpayer-funded parties with cocaine and hookers. As long as I'm invited.
Click to expand...

Then what is the need for the agreement and why is everyone so upset about it? The money is supposed to go to the underdeveloped countries, but like I said, they are not big contributors of the CO2 emissions in the first place, so there isn't much to change.

The party is next month. I'll send you an invite.
 
holbritter said:
Then what is the need for the agreement and why is everyone so upset about it?
Click to expand...

Because it's important for the entire world to actually, you know, do something about this potential problem we're creating. Furthermore, if the biggest to-date contributor to the problem throws up their hands and says "eh **** it," that just gives other nations political cover to do the same.

I'd counter with this question: why is this such an economy-crippling agreement when the standards are self-imposed and self-enforced?

The money is supposed to go to the underdeveloped countries, but like I said, they are not big contributors of the CO2 emissions in the first place, so there isn't much to change.
Click to expand...
But they're certainly big potential contributors in the long run, as they industrialize. It's easier and faster for them to do so with fossil fuels, but a little subsidy here and there can push that towards renewable energy sources. Instead of increasing their emissions, they'll decrease their emissions. That's good.

There are 1.2 billion people in Africa. If their per-capita emissions matched the United States, that wouldn't be great. Isn't it logical to make sure they never reach that level?

The party is next month. I'll send you an invite.
Click to expand...

WooO!
 
RetiredUSN said:
I agree, so tell the world to grow up and stop killing each other. Do you have a plan for this?

Global warming isn't blowing up people, and the Paris Accord is just another feel good think tank that does nothing.

Natural disasters happen many times every year and the military is usually the first responder for international aid.

The US Navy's mission is to keep the sea lanes open for international commerce and handles 60% of the burden for doing so.

Why doesn't Europe take operational responsibility for patrolling the Med, or responding directly to each crisis? God knows, I would love to see our troops get more home time.

Why didn't the Euro's take the lead going into Lybia when ISIS was going to stop their precious oil deliveries?
Click to expand...

I just questioned if USA need to increase there annual military spending with over 50 billion then USA and their allies combine military spendings are more than half of the worlds military spending.

Also according to Pentagon climate change is a immediate threat to national security, with increased risks from terrorism, infectious disease, global poverty and food shortages. So it can be wise to spend money helping developing countries adapt their societies to climate change. Also as Deuce said those developing countries wants to become developed countries and they can't do it the same way todays developed countries have done. Because it would mean that world emission would spiral out of control completely.

https://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/14/...-presents-immediate-security-threat.html?_r=0

Also today USA have to defend brutal dicatorship with their miliary. For example after twenty years of military bases in Saudi Arabia the country is still one of world's most brutal dictatorship their woman are treated almost like slaves. So by reducing the dependency on oil USA may no longer have to defend brutal dicatorships in the middle east.

https://www.hrw.org/world-report/2017/country-chapters/saudi-arabia

https://www.amnesty.org/en/countries/middle-east-and-north-africa/saudi-arabia/report-saudi-arabia/
 
Bergslagstroll said:
I just questioned if USA need to increase there annual military spending with over 50 billion then USA and their allies combine military spendings are more than half of the worlds military spending.

Also according to Pentagon climate change is a immediate threat to national security, with increased risks from terrorism, infectious disease, global poverty and food shortages. So it can be wise to spend money helping developing countries adapt their societies to climate change. Also as Deuce said those developing countries wants to become developed countries and they can't do it the same way todays developed countries have done. Because it would mean that world emission would spiral out of control completely.

https://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/14/...-presents-immediate-security-threat.html?_r=0

Also today USA have to defend brutal dicatorship with their miliary. For example after twenty years of military bases in Saudi Arabia the country is still one of world's most brutal dictatorship their woman are treated almost like slaves. So by reducing the dependency on oil USA may no longer have to defend brutal dicatorships in the middle east.

https://www.hrw.org/world-report/2017/country-chapters/saudi-arabia

https://www.amnesty.org/en/countries/middle-east-and-north-africa/saudi-arabia/report-saudi-arabia/
Click to expand...

Your link is from 2014, and the Pentagon takes it's global warming marching orders from the president. That president is gone.....you know..... the one that turned NASA into a Muslim outreach day care center.
 
RetiredUSN said:
Your link is from 2014, and the Pentagon takes it's global warming marching orders from the president. That president is gone.....you know..... the one that turned NASA into a Muslim outreach day care center.
Click to expand...


Does grasp of reality is tenuous at best
 
RetiredUSN said:
Your link is from 2014, and the Pentagon takes it's global warming marching orders from the president. That president is gone.....you know..... the one that turned NASA into a Muslim outreach day care center.
Click to expand...

Even with Trump and a Republican Congress, Pentagon are preparing for the effect of global warming.

U.S. Military Prepares for Sea-Level Rise and Other Climate Change Impacts Despite Opposition

You also have had a bipartisan group of defense experts and former military leaders urging Donald Trump to consider global warming a grave threat to national security.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/...ge-trump-to-see-climate-as-a-security-threat/

Even Donald Trump’s defense secretary consider climate change a national security challenge.

https://www.propublica.org/article/...es-climate-change-national-security-challenge
 
RetiredUSN said:
Your link is from 2014, and the Pentagon takes it's global warming marching orders from the president. That president is gone.....you know..... the one that turned NASA into a Muslim outreach day care center.
Click to expand...

It's cute you buy that "Muslim outreach center" line.
 
Leaving the Paris agreement is also bad for American business.

Multinational companies will still need to follow ever-stricter emissions laws that other countries are adopting, no matter the location of their headquarters. Automakers like Ford Motor and General Motors would still need to build cars that meet stringent fuel economy and emissions standards in the European Union, Japan and even China, not to mention California.

American companies also face the wrath of overseas consumers for abandoning what has been a popular global agreement — customers who could buy more Renaults instead of Chevrolets or Reeboks instead of Nikes.

“Pulling out of Paris would be the worst thing for brand America since Abu Ghraib,” said Nigel Purvis, a top environmental negotiator in the Clinton and George W. Bush administrations and the chief executive of Climate Advisers, a consulting firm.
Click to expand...

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/01/climate/american-cities-climate-standards.html?_r=1
 
RetiredUSN said:
The writer of the Times piece is Henry Fountain, a known climate alarmist who has been discredited by many.
Click to expand...

Here you can read the letter directly there CEO’s of 30 companies with major operations in the United States wrote to convince Donald Trump to let USA stay in the agreement. In the letter they wrote that:

We believe that American companies…and our suppliers, customers, and communities… will benefit from U.S. participation in the Paris Agreement in several ways:

It strengthens our competitiveness in global markets.
It benefits American manufacturing as we modernize to new, more efficient technologies.
It supports investment by setting clear goals which enable long-term planning.
It expands global and domestic markets for clean, energy-efficient technologies which will generate jobs and economic growth.
It encourages market-based solutions and innovation to achieve emissions reductions at low cost.
Click to expand...

CEOs of Major U.S. Companies Urge Trump: Stay in Paris - The B Team

You can also look at my country Sweden that are in many ways are in front then it comes to tranistion to a sustainable economy.

https://sweden.se/nature/sweden-tackles-climate-change/

That at the same time Sweden have a strong economy. For example Sweden is the best country for business according to Forbes.

https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2017...ost-other-countries-at-just-about-everything/
 
Bergslagstroll said:
Here you can read the letter directly there CEO’s of 30 companies with major operations in the United States wrote to convince Donald Trump to let USA stay in the agreement. In the letter they wrote that:



CEOs of Major U.S. Companies Urge Trump: Stay in Paris - The B Team

You can also look at my country Sweden that are in many ways are in front then it comes to tranistion to a sustainable economy.

https://sweden.se/nature/sweden-tackles-climate-change/

That at the same time Sweden have a strong economy. For example Sweden is the best country for business according to Forbes.

https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2017...ost-other-countries-at-just-about-everything/
Click to expand...

There are thousands of companies. Opinion articles are just opinion & speculation.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom