• 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!

Was it Right for Trump to Pull the US out of the Paris Agreement?

Was it Right for Trump to Pull the US out of the Paris Agreement?

  • Yes

    Votes: 28 45.9%

  • No

    Votes: 32 52.5%

  • No Opinion

    Votes: 1 1.6%
  • Total voters
    61
Fletch said:
I don't know that I accept the premise of your question. I am not a scientist, nor am I a denier that the activities of 7 billion humans might have an impact on climate. That said, I have yet to hear an explanation as to why a warmer earth is a bad thing and, more importantly, what can actually be done to stop it. This agreement, even under the most optimistic of projection, would have a negligible effect 100 years from now. So if the costs are high and the results non existent, why do it? The truth is, if human activity is altering the climate, there is nothing we can do about it.

A non-binding agreement among nations, many of whom would take no steps whatsoever, is not making a priority of climate change.
Click to expand...

If indeed, one believes the 95% of scientists who have studied the issue, and have concluded that the earth is warming due to the activities of man; then the agreement makes sense, in that it unites mankind in finding a collective solution.
 
Moderate Right said:
I hate these biased polls. But, since I'm not voting in your biased poll, I'll put my two cents in anyway. The Earth has gone through many periods of heating and cooling, even before man came into the picture. The main question is, how much does man actually contribute to it and I have never seen much evidence that man does anything more than a dent. You can't fight mother nature. The world could spend all kinds of septrillion dollars and only effect climate change to only a small degree. Now I'm not saying we shouldn't try and that we should totally ignore it, but the left wing nuts would have you believe that man, all by himself, can change the climate. As Trump would say, that is just nothing but a hoax. Throwing money into a bottomless pit does nothing more than throw money into a bottomless pit. The world would go bankrupt trying to effect climate change and, in the end, the poles would still be melting.
Click to expand...

Perhaps this will provide the evidence that you need:

https://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-scientific-consensus-intermediate.htm

That humans are causing global warming is the position of the Academies of Science from 80 countries plus many scientific organizations that study climate science. More specifically, around 95% of active climate researchers actively publishing climate papers endorse the consensus position.
 
No, but then again the Paris accord was completely voluntary and wouldn't have been implemented by 2020. Withdrawing from it sends a bad signal to the rest of the world that we're not willing to take global issues like climate change seriously. There's nothing about Paris that would have been bad for business.
 
Winston said:
No. It was wrong. Climate Change is real and is caused by human activity. It opened us up to ridicule. And it will hurt us economically. I don't approve. And most of the country thinks it was a stupid, stupid decision.

But, Trump had already put Scott Pruitt, prolly the single worst thing about Trump's admin, except maybe Sessions, at the EPA. And they gutted the Clean Power Plan. So, they had already pulled out, it just needed a bow on top.
Click to expand...


I believe you are wrong there.
 
Media_Truth said:
If indeed, one believes the 95% of scientists who have studied the issue, and have concluded that the earth is warming due to the activities of man; then the agreement makes sense, in that it unites mankind in finding a collective solution.
Click to expand...

One can accept the idea that human activity is impacting the environment without accepting the supposed 'solutions.' Voluntary compliance to unspecified reductions that can be ignored at will is not a solution to anything. The simple fact is if the temperature is rising due to human activity, then the temperature is going to rise. Any 'solution' that is measure in tenths of a degree over 100 years is not a solution. It is a guess and not worth the expense and loss of liberty that such 'solutions' demand.
 
radcen said:
I say 'no', but for global political ramifications, not climate change itself.
Click to expand...

I think that probably this is more about politicians keeping the promises the voters elected them for than other stuff.
 
joG said:
I think that probably this is more about politicians keeping the promises the voters elected them for than other stuff.
Click to expand...

And I can see that, but to me part of a politicians job is to take the long term consequences into account even when the voters don't. I think our representatives should be better than the average schmuck.

Then again, considering Trump has utterly failed and backtracked at so much, maybe he felt the need to come through on at least one of his promises, just to placate the faithful.
 
Fletch said:
One can accept the idea that human activity is impacting the environment without accepting the supposed 'solutions.' Voluntary compliance to unspecified reductions that can be ignored at will is not a solution to anything. The simple fact is if the temperature is rising due to human activity, then the temperature is going to rise. Any 'solution' that is measure in tenths of a degree over 100 years is not a solution. It is a guess and not worth the expense and loss of liberty that such 'solutions' demand.
Click to expand...

For years, an agreement was sought for unity on climate change. But there were always obstacles that prevented some of the major players from signing on. Finally, there was an agreement, which was a START, and this arrogant **** makes us the only country that drops out. He did it with lies and misrepresentation of the economics and the actual climate change science. Republicans better get their act together. You are playing Russian Roulette with your children's future.
 
Media_Truth said:
For years, an agreement was sought for unity on climate change. But there were always obstacles that prevented some of the major players from signing on. Finally, there was an agreement, which was a START, and this arrogant **** makes us the only country that drops out. He did it with lies and misrepresentation of the economics and the actual climate change science. Republicans better get their act together. You are playing Russian Roulette with your children's future.
Click to expand...
Politics is about the hear-and-now, and the next election. Everything beyond that is just talk.
 
Media_Truth said:
For years, an agreement was sought for unity on climate change. But there were always obstacles that prevented some of the major players from signing on. Finally, there was an agreement, which was a START, and this arrogant **** makes us the only country that drops out. He did it with lies and misrepresentation of the economics and the actual climate change science. Republicans better get their act together. You are playing Russian Roulette with your children's future.
Click to expand...

THe concessions made to get nations like China and India to sign on was to exempt them from having to do anything for a decade or more, and to give everyone else the right to ignore the goals they agreed to. Its easy to get people to agree to things when they either don't have to live up to the terms they agreed to or will be getting cash payments from someone else. The whole thing was a sham. Worse yet, if it was so vital to our survival and so good for the nation, why didn't Obama sell it to the public and have it go through the Senate?
 
Fletch said:
THe concessions made to get nations like China and India to sign on was to exempt them from having to do anything for a decade or more, and to give everyone else the right to ignore the goals they agreed to. Its easy to get people to agree to things when they either don't have to live up to the terms they agreed to or will be getting cash payments from someone else. The whole thing was a sham. Worse yet, if it was so vital to our survival and so good for the nation, why didn't Obama sell it to the public and have it go through the Senate?
Click to expand...
I cannot discount this, because we've certainly hamstrung ourselves on previous agreements and treaties. If this is indeed true, then maybe Trump's decision was a good one. I'm tired of us taking the brunt of everything. If addressing climate change is good, and climate changes knows no boundaries, and it needs to be done, then everybody should be doing it right now. Everybody.
 
Fletch said:
THe concessions made to get nations like China and India to sign on was to exempt them from having to do anything for a decade or more, and to give everyone else the right to ignore the goals they agreed to. Its easy to get people to agree to things when they either don't have to live up to the terms they agreed to or will be getting cash payments from someone else. The whole thing was a sham. Worse yet, if it was so vital to our survival and so good for the nation, why didn't Obama sell it to the public and have it go through the Senate?
Click to expand...

I'll turn your question around. If it's so bad for the country, why did Trump have to lie and misrepresent the facts?
 
radcen said:
And I can see that, but to me part of a politicians job is to take the long term consequences into account even when the voters don't. I think our representatives should be better than the average schmuck.

Then again, considering Trump has utterly failed and backtracked at so much, maybe he felt the need to come through on at least one of his promises, just to placate the faithful.
Click to expand...

Oh. I'm not saying that this is good, bad or the other thing ecologically or regards foreign policy. And yes. Politicians should have the consequences in mind. But they make promises to their voters. The voters compare the promises and vote. If politicians don't act according to mandate, one could argue that such a society doesn't require what would then be but a cumbersome ritual.
 
This is ridiculous, 44.7% of posters think we should have not removed the US from Paris Accords.
IF citizens of this country want to put the USA into competitive disadvantages to the largest
poluters, the country is in trouble.

My only hope is those who wanted to remain were so uninformed that when they realize what this
was about they will change there minds. The only reason this was not even worse than Obama's
Iran treaty is that this fiasco does not have any teeth in it.
 
holbritter said:
Funny, I was never asked and neither was anyone I know.
Click to expand...

So do you think Yale just made up the numbers? I wasn't asked either, for what it's worth.
 
Media_Truth said:
So do you think Yale just made up the numbers? I wasn't asked either, for what it's worth.
Click to expand...

NOt sure if they made up the numbers or not, but seeing as how half of Americans couldn't name the current VP, what they think of this particular issue is suspect. I haven't taken a poll but I would be willing to bet that you could count the number of Americans who have actually read the agreement on one hand.
 
Media_Truth said:
So do you think Yale just made up the numbers? I wasn't asked either, for what it's worth.
Click to expand...

Then how do they know what we, you and I, feel about it. I don't think they made up the numbers, but the numbers are not complete if everyone is not included.
 
The decision should've been made by Congress, not Trump.
 
Trippy Trekker said:
I gave you a 'Like" inadvertently. At least on this issue, Trump can point to his campaign rhetoric, his choice of Pruitt for EPA Administrator, and say he followed through. Trump's decision just adds one more strong cause for many of us to continuing praying, speaking out, and working toward Trump's ouster.

When it comes to determining humanity's impact on climate change and our environment, many of us prefer to rely on the the collective judgment of the World's Scientific Community, not the ego driven, arrogant and ignorant judgment of Trump and Pruitt.
Click to expand...

That "scientific community" would likley be singing a different tune if its funding was being diverted to pay for the treaty terms. That is the strange thing about government funding - those getting the "free" cash often disagree with those asked to pony up the cash.
 
holbritter said:
Then how do they know what we, you and I, feel about it. I don't think they made up the numbers, but the numbers are not complete if everyone is not included.
Click to expand...

I'm not here to debate the merits and accuracy of polls. However, I will say this. There are many-many people at my church who voted for Trump, and yet are not climate change deniers. Based on what I see and hear, I think the Yale numbers are probably accurate.
 
Winston said:
Majorities of Americans in Every State Support Participation in the Paris Agreement - Yale Program on Climate Change Communication
Click to expand...

The question wording makes it appear that China and India are cutting rather than still increasing CO2 output (until 2030?) under this agreement. How one asks a poll question has a huge effect on how that poll question gets answered. Had they asked folks if they had read the "Paris agreement" (not mentioning the subject matter as "curbing global warming" at all) and rejected any that had not read it then the results would be far different. Had they asked if folks they supported the "Paris Climate Treaty signed by the Senate" they would have gotten nearly the same results even though that is much like asking if they supported unicorns.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom