General / Off-Topic Sorry From America....Earth (Let's keep this one friendly guys)

[CMDR MadRaptor]

I'm sorry Mother Earth....I'm so so so sorry.

Here you are, providing us a place to live, food to survive and beauty to behold and all we do is use up your resources and overpopulate and destroy.

There was a shining light ahead of use, it looked like people were starting to come around and then an orange skinned man with no values and no knowledge comes in and destroys the one thing the world had come to an agreement on.

Why, because he thinks we will lose jobs, he thinks that a couple of degrees won't change a thing, he thinks we need to focus on America only.

While America is important, if we are ever going to make a life amongst the stars we need to start thinking globally, we need to realize that it's not us against them but the earth and all it encompasses against the harshness of the Universe.

Jobs, you may lose some in the oil, gas and what but those would be made up by commission new renewable energy sources like wind farms, solar farms. Technology of the future will be geared towards this clean, green ways and new jobs will come from that. Less pollution in the climate means healthier lives for Americans and the rest of the world. Most importantly if we had stayed in this pact we would have shown those in the world who are already doubting us and ready to kick us to the curb that we aren't completely a trashed country. But nope, due to his arrogance and misunderstandings and pockets being lined by oil companies now we just alienate more of the world.

There is a difference in being a good parent and teaching your kid the right way to grow up and then there is the parent who is so strict and tries so hard to protect that they harm instead. They don't allow growth and stifle anything that might put themselves at risk. The greater good is really a veiled, i need things to be easy for me.

A few degrees, though not much is a start, of course we aren't going to solve the problem right away and that is what turns some people off. If it isn't affecting them now, or personally it doesn't matter. This is where people are wrong, we are reaching a tipping point and this action will only cause us to get there faster, once we get there there is no going back and only then will people understand, sadly it'll be too late.

I'm ashamed to be an American today. We've taken ourselves out of the picture and have shown the world that we truly don't care about this planet.

I'm sorry Earth! I will do what I can to help but it's going to take all of us now, all the business and energy corporations to do what our president should have done....wait, other people's president, because he sure as hell ain't mine!

Thank you to all the other countries out there who are willing to keep in this pact and make a bright future for us.

 

[CMDR CODY]

You certainly are ashamed.
You will never see the stars, this civilization is in decline, no where to but down.

I can not be ashamed, because I am American.

 

[CMDR MadRaptor]

I guess saying ashamed is a bit much, especially because the one good thing out of all of this is the fact the The American People are standing up and taking thing into their own hands now. Exxon, Shell, mayors across the country all are deciding to stand up to the president and go forward in meeting the demands of the Paris Agreement. That makes me proud. It makes me realize again that the president only has so much power but no matter what power he has if he can't control the people and he is beginning to go to far and we are waking up.

 

[Ca$hback]

Shame. Shame. Shame. Shame....

 

[Sooden]

This is the problem with some people. They think they care about the environment, but they are low information.

If you cared, you would be happy with event that just happened.

if i am wrong, tell me, how did the pairs agreement really help the environment.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TJNJ_k8SUkA

wealth and education can improve the environment, not virtue signaling and wealth redistribution. Not having a go at you, just wish to say you are misguided, and i understand why, when you are bombarded with such info in the Main stream, who keep getting things wrong.

First it was global cooling, then it was global warming.... now its climate change. So there is climate change, really is, no once can denie that , has happened lots, even in recorded history. But to waste money and effort on solar and wind, when we need to prepare for what coming... well, its worrying.

Her is an example, and i can only talk for the UK here. Recycling... I challenge anyone in the UK to find an official video that shows recycling. You can get lots of videos on how your wasted is sorted. Not word on what happens to it after that apart from a few councils;

-Cardboard ships to china (SHIPED, not recyclable where it is)
-Plastic turned into toy, car parts and polyesters, some some is used as fuel (mixed location, reasonable...but still shipped and a lot of pre recycled -rubbish falls from ships... plastic in the sea)
-Metals (no info on that as for as i can see... i'm guessing that is just brokered off... nice cash)
-Food (bio matter, well what else can you do, then landfill)

But people still happy recycle their rubbish without asking what happens to it, without finding out if they are really helping the environment (or if there is a better way). 2 reasons why;

1) We are told to... We are told we are good people if we do and bad people if we don't, and if you don't, then other people (who think they are doing the right thing) will call you bad.

2) in the Eu, we are fined for rubbish that goes to land fill... so government will push the recycling message. Even though, a lot of rubbish would be better in the ground (stored property...) after sorting.. and example;

Paper and cardboard...cutting down tree is bad? no, not in managed forest.

putting used paper and cardboard into land fill is bad? no, not if done correctly. its a good way to lock carbon into the ground, providing it is buried with the correct accompanying materials. A form of carbon capture... but no profit in this, even-though it would be more environmentally friendly.

instead it is sorted, shipped and then chemically wash, and reused (much more environmentally friendly to just use another tree).. and then when its beyond recycling, its buried (or burnt)... all them extra pollutants and shipping, and treatments add to it life cycle, rather than growing another tree ><

....and don't get me started on eco-cars

My point is... you don't have the information you need and you understandably feel worried about whats happening. I just want you to think about it, maybe even research... not just follow what your told (taking the information on believe)

 

[FuzzySpider]

This is what happens when you elect a thick, moronic, corrupt, arrogant, intellectually-stunted man-child to the most powerful office on the planet.

This is a dark day for planet earth. There needs to be real moves to removing the current bunch from the Whitehouse, whatever it takes.

 

[Patrick_68000]

Houston, we've had a problem ...

 

[CMDR MadRaptor]

This is the problem with some people. They think they care about the environment, but they are low information.

If you cared, you would be happy with event that just happened.

if i am wrong, tell me, how did the pairs agreement really help the environment.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TJNJ_k8SUkA

wealth and education can improve the environment, not virtue signaling and wealth redistribution. Not having a go at you, just wish to say you are misguided, and i understand why, when you are bombarded with such info in the Main stream, who keep getting things wrong.

First it was global cooling, then it was global warming.... now its climate change. So there is climate change, really is, no once can denie that , has happened lots, even in recorded history. But to waste money and effort on solar and wind, when we need to prepare for what coming... well, its worrying.

Her is an example, and i can only talk for the UK here. Recycling... I challenge anyone in the UK to find an official video that shows recycling. You can get lots of videos on how your wasted is sorted. Not word on what happens to it after that apart from a few councils;

-Cardboard ships to china (SHIPED, not recyclable where it is)
-Plastic turned into toy, car parts and polyesters, some some is used as fuel (mixed location, reasonable...but still shipped and a lot of pre recycled -rubbish falls from ships... plastic in the sea)
-Metals (no info on that as for as i can see... i'm guessing that is just brokered off... nice cash)
-Food (bio matter, well what else can you do, then landfill)

But people still happy recycle their rubbish without asking what happens to it, without finding out if they are really helping the environment (or if there is a better way). 2 reasons why;

1) We are told to... We are told we are good people if we do and bad people if we don't, and if you don't, then other people (who think they are doing the right thing) will call you bad.

2) in the Eu, we are fined for rubbish that goes to land fill... so government will push the recycling message. Even though, a lot of rubbish would be better in the ground (stored property...) after sorting.. and example;

Paper and cardboard...cutting down tree is bad? no, not in managed forest.

putting used paper and cardboard into land fill is bad? no, not if done correctly. its a good way to lock carbon into the ground, providing it is buried with the correct accompanying materials. A form of carbon capture... but no profit in this, even-though it would be more environmentally friendly.

instead it is sorted, shipped and then chemically wash, and reused (much more environmentally friendly to just use another tree).. and then when its beyond recycling, its buried (or burnt)... all them extra pollutants and shipping, and treatments add to it life cycle, rather than growing another tree ><

....and don't get me started on eco-cars

My point is... you don't have the information you need and you understandably feel worried about whats happening. I just want you to think about it, maybe even research... not just follow what your told (taking the information on believe)

First off, never trust a Molyneux....secondly, a lot of misinformation and lies were spouted today.

1. The use would would not be allowed to build any coal plants and China and Indid would be allowed to keep polluting.

Nope, there is nothing in the agreement that says this. In fact we could continue to build Coal Plants all we liked. As for China, they have cancelled plans for over 100 new coal plants and have made great stride in reaching their emission goals.

The great thing about this agreement was that each country got to set their own terms, as long as the end goal was the same, lower emissions.

2. Losing jobs - Well coal is already on it's way out in favor of natural gas and clean renewable energy, the US pulling out of this agreement just shows those companies leading that charge that we don't care and I can see them having no trouble going to those other countries with their new technologies and jobs, which will then cause loss of jobs here.

3. Trump couldn't even make sense of the research paper given to him.

Most importantly, and something I mentioned before, nobody told the US what they needed to do, we came up with our own guidelines. Trump didn't need to pull out, especially if he is so willing to revisit it again to make it more fair, fair, all he needed to do was change what we already had down.

The fact that the entire world is onboard has got to say something to you. The only others not on board are because they are in civil war or because they feel the agreement didn't do enough!

Don't even get me started on the slap to the face Trump got when he tried to use pittsburgh as an example. Hell, pittsburgh didn't even vote for trump, and then of course then slapped in the face when they said they supported the agreement.

What this has done is shown the world that the US no longer cares about the global community. I understand that we need to fix our own country but we can't dismiss the rest of the world. It is a big slap in the face to this planet.

 

[Sooden]

First off, never trust a Molyneux....secondly, a lot of misinformation and lies were spouted today.

1. The use would would not be allowed to build any coal plants and China and Indid would be allowed to keep polluting.

Nope, there is nothing in the agreement that says this. In fact we could continue to build Coal Plants all we liked. As for China, they have cancelled plans for over 100 new coal plants and have made great stride in reaching their emission goals.

The great thing about this agreement was that each country got to set their own terms, as long as the end goal was the same, lower emissions.

2. Losing jobs - Well coal is already on it's way out in favor of natural gas and clean renewable energy, the US pulling out of this agreement just shows those companies leading that charge that we don't care and I can see them having no trouble going to those other countries with their new technologies and jobs, which will then cause loss of jobs here.

3. Trump couldn't even make sense of the research paper given to him.

Most importantly, and something I mentioned before, nobody told the US what they needed to do, we came up with our own guidelines. Trump didn't need to pull out, especially if he is so willing to revisit it again to make it more fair, fair, all he needed to do was change what we already had down.

The fact that the entire world is onboard has got to say something to you. The only others not on board are because they are in civil war or because they feel the agreement didn't do enough!

Don't even get me started on the slap to the face Trump got when he tried to use pittsburgh as an example. Hell, pittsburgh didn't even vote for trump, and then of course then slapped in the face when they said they supported the agreement.

What this has done is shown the world that the US no longer cares about the global community. I understand that we need to fix our own country but we can't dismiss the rest of the world. It is a big slap in the face to this planet.

1. The use would would not be allowed to build any coal plants and China and Indid would be allowed to keep polluting

'Nope, there is nothing in the agreement that says this. In fact we could continue to build Coal Plants all we liked. As for China, they have cancelled plans for over 100 new coal plants and have made great stride in reaching their emission goals.'.. not directly prohibited.... but hay, the UK can keep opening landfill site if they like, but can't' really. Its more of a statement of unbalance deals for each country.

*also, can i ask a favor. can you give me a link to a story relating to 'As for China, they have cancelled plans for over 100 new coal plants' (this i not a test, i really interested in all facts)

'The great thing about this agreement was that each country got to set their own terms, as long as the end goal was the same, lower emissions.'.... but doesn't each country have different emissions limit? (taken as a percentage Vs population), in-order not to stifle their economies, but we are not all equal.


'2. Losing jobs - Well coal is already on it's way out in favor of natural gas and clean renewable energy, the US pulling out of this agreement just shows those companies leading that charge that we don't care and I can see them having no trouble going to those other countries with their new technologies and jobs, which will then cause loss of jobs here.'... the US is a leader in clean coal, cleaner than a lot of other power sources going on in other counties. Coal is abundant, why not make that cleaner, carbon capture and all?

As for clean tech leaving the US, will have to see. Maybe they will leave if they not getting subsidies (Tesla), maybe it will open competition for real companies to be competitive, and there will be more jobs (a lot more in the green sector than now).. we can't be sure, maybe if we had more information... economist, all tool the president has to hand?

I personally would love the energy markets to be open to all, not just a select few... worked on free energy my self, interesting stuff (and not that hard to do)... then i see Tesla (subsided by taxes on fuel) coming up with solar roof tiles, as if they are something new... no they are an old idea, he didn't come up with it... open up the energy market, get rid of the subsided monopolies

'3. Trump couldn't even make sense of the research paper given to him.'... would have to ask him before assuming.. that's just hating trump (adds nothing). Maybe he can't, maybe he has people around him that can (that's normal by the way, you employ people to do tasks you don't special in, how government works)... so it would be his advisers that made this happen, and trump agreed with them (or that hes just doing what he was voted in to do, novel idea ,i know).

'The fact that the entire world is onboard has got to say something to you'... not a fact. The governments are, that's true, but if you keep up to date with world politics, you will see a lot of them governments are on shaky ground, for not listening to the people.

'What this has done is shown the world that the US no longer cares about the global community. I understand that we need to fix our own country but we can't dismiss the rest of the world. It is a big slap in the face to this planet.'

Gotta fix your self before you can fix the world, china seems to be getting that deal, why not the US?

The US produces more Co2 per capita... that's a population thing, a nice way to screw the numbers. Lot are rural and undeveloped areas in chain and India.

The US has reduce its emissions while other counties have not (... The deal has not been fair to the US, and i guess Trump can't see it getting any better... so a smart move, get out and go in fresh

Spoiler

https://www.forbes.com/sites/rrapie...wering-carbon-dioxide-emissions/#657d57c75f48

Also migration in to europe and UK, that helps drive down the per capita number as well, but nothing will have changed... it number shuffling and nothing productive is really happening I know, pro immigration governments may be doing it to help with climate change number... maybe... maybe tinfoil

 

[beelbeebub]

I would add for information.

Yes China uses a lot of coal, china does not have abundant and easily accessible natural gas like the US.

However,they have significantly tightened up their emissions standards and efficiency, new plant standards are higher than the US or EU!

In.addition they are aggressively shutting and upgrading older plants. They are on track for every Chinese coal plant to be cleaner and more efficient that any US plant by 2025.

They are also building out a big renewables push. Their plans (which they are currently on track to meet) will build more renewable capacity by 2030, than the entire US grid.


So the myth that China is doing nothing whilst the US adds costs is just that a myth.

In addition the Paris agreement had no legal limits or sanctions. It simply boiled down to every country declaring it's targeted reduction and how it would achieve them, then reporting progress in a transparent way every 5 years.

That's it. There were no penalties for missing the self set targets, no prescribed methods of achieving them. Countries could even reduce or change their self set targets at any time.

There was no downside to the US remaining. Trump's idea that there is anything to "renegotiate" is just his misunderstanding of the subject.

 

[CMDR MadRaptor]

1. The use would would not be allowed to build any coal plants and China and Indid would be allowed to keep polluting

'Nope, there is nothing in the agreement that says this. In fact we could continue to build Coal Plants all we liked. As for China, they have cancelled plans for over 100 new coal plants and have made great stride in reaching their emission goals.'.. not directly prohibited.... but hay, the UK can keep opening landfill site if they like, but can't' really. Its more of a statement of unbalance deals for each country.

*also, can i ask a favor. can you give me a link to a story relating to 'As for China, they have cancelled plans for over 100 new coal plants' (this i not a test, i really interested in all facts)

'The great thing about this agreement was that each country got to set their own terms, as long as the end goal was the same, lower emissions.'.... but doesn't each country have different emissions limit? (taken as a percentage Vs population), in-order not to stifle their economies, but we are not all equal.


'2. Losing jobs - Well coal is already on it's way out in favor of natural gas and clean renewable energy, the US pulling out of this agreement just shows those companies leading that charge that we don't care and I can see them having no trouble going to those other countries with their new technologies and jobs, which will then cause loss of jobs here.'... the US is a leader in clean coal, cleaner than a lot of other power sources going on in other counties. Coal is abundant, why not make that cleaner, carbon capture and all?

As for clean tech leaving the US, will have to see. Maybe they will leave if they not getting subsidies (Tesla), maybe it will open competition for real companies to be competitive, and there will be more jobs (a lot more in the green sector than now).. we can't be sure, maybe if we had more information... economist, all tool the president has to hand?

I personally would love the energy markets to be open to all, not just a select few... worked on free energy my self, interesting stuff (and not that hard to do)... then i see Tesla (subsided by taxes on fuel) coming up with solar roof tiles, as if they are something new... no they are an old idea, he didn't come up with it... open up the energy market, get rid of the subsided monopolies

'3. Trump couldn't even make sense of the research paper given to him.'... would have to ask him before assuming.. that's just hating trump (adds nothing). Maybe he can't, maybe he has people around him that can (that's normal by the way, you employ people to do tasks you don't special in, how government works)... so it would be his advisers that made this happen, and trump agreed with them (or that hes just doing what he was voted in to do, novel idea ,i know).

'The fact that the entire world is onboard has got to say something to you'... not a fact. The governments are, that's true, but if you keep up to date with world politics, you will see a lot of them governments are on shaky ground, for not listening to the people.

'What this has done is shown the world that the US no longer cares about the global community. I understand that we need to fix our own country but we can't dismiss the rest of the world. It is a big slap in the face to this planet.'

Gotta fix your self before you can fix the world, china seems to be getting that deal, why not the US?

The US produces more Co2 per capita... that's a population thing, a nice way to screw the numbers. Lot are rural and undeveloped areas in chain and India.

The US has reduce its emissions while other counties have not (... The deal has not been fair to the US, and i guess Trump can't see it getting any better... so a smart move, get out and go in fresh

https://blogs-images.forbes.com/rrapier/files/2016/06/CO2-for-Forbes.jpg?width=960

https://www.forbes.com/sites/rrapie...wering-carbon-dioxide-emissions/#657d57c75f48

Also migration in to europe and UK, that helps drive down the per capita number as well, but nothing will have changed... it number shuffling and nothing productive is really happening I know, pro immigration governments may be doing it to help with climate change number... maybe... maybe tinfoil

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...hecking-donald-trumps-statement-withdrawing-/

http://www.cnn.com/2017/06/01/politics/sutter-paris-trump-ignore-facts/index.html

http://climatenexus.org/learn/inter...and-facts-about-cop21-paris-climate-agreement

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...s-climate-change-deal/?utm_term=.98698c98c5fd

https://www.thestreet.com/video/14157632/5-facts-about-the-paris-climate-agreement.html

http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-...o-what-exactly-is-in-the-paris-climate-accord

As for the research paper, even the guys at MIT who did the paper said Trump missed the point with it and misrepresented it's facts

 

[beelbeebub]

1. The use would would not be allowed to build any coal plants and China and Indid would be allowed to keep polluting

'Nope, there is nothing in the agreement that says this. In fact we could continue to build Coal Plants all we liked. As for China, they have cancelled plans for over 100 new coal plants and have made great stride in reaching their emission goals.'.. not directly prohibited.... but hay, the UK can keep opening landfill site if they like, but can't' really. Its more of a statement of unbalance deals for each country.

*also, can i ask a favor. can you give me a link to a story relating to 'As for China, they have cancelled plans for over 100 new coal plants' (this i not a test, i really interested in all facts)

'The great thing about this agreement was that each country got to set their own terms, as long as the end goal was the same, lower emissions.'.... but doesn't each country have different emissions limit? (taken as a percentage Vs population), in-order not to stifle their economies, but we are not all equal.


'2. Losing jobs - Well coal is already on it's way out in favor of natural gas and clean renewable energy, the US pulling out of this agreement just shows those companies leading that charge that we don't care and I can see them having no trouble going to those other countries with their new technologies and jobs, which will then cause loss of jobs here.'... the US is a leader in clean coal, cleaner than a lot of other power sources going on in other counties. Coal is abundant, why not make that cleaner, carbon capture and all?

As for clean tech leaving the US, will have to see. Maybe they will leave if they not getting subsidies (Tesla), maybe it will open competition for real companies to be competitive, and there will be more jobs (a lot more in the green sector than now).. we can't be sure, maybe if we had more information... economist, all tool the president has to hand?

I personally would love the energy markets to be open to all, not just a select few... worked on free energy my self, interesting stuff (and not that hard to do)... then i see Tesla (subsided by taxes on fuel) coming up with solar roof tiles, as if they are something new... no they are an old idea, he didn't come up with it... open up the energy market, get rid of the subsided monopolies

'3. Trump couldn't even make sense of the research paper given to him.'... would have to ask him before assuming.. that's just hating trump (adds nothing). Maybe he can't, maybe he has people around him that can (that's normal by the way, you employ people to do tasks you don't special in, how government works)... so it would be his advisers that made this happen, and trump agreed with them (or that hes just doing what he was voted in to do, novel idea ,i know).

'The fact that the entire world is onboard has got to say something to you'... not a fact. The governments are, that's true, but if you keep up to date with world politics, you will see a lot of them governments are on shaky ground, for not listening to the people.

'What this has done is shown the world that the US no longer cares about the global community. I understand that we need to fix our own country but we can't dismiss the rest of the world. It is a big slap in the face to this planet.'

Gotta fix your self before you can fix the world, china seems to be getting that deal, why not the US?

The US produces more Co2 per capita... that's a population thing, a nice way to screw the numbers. Lot are rural and undeveloped areas in chain and India.

The US has reduce its emissions while other counties have not (... The deal has not been fair to the US, and i guess Trump can't see it getting any better... so a smart move, get out and go in fresh

https://blogs-images.forbes.com/rrapier/files/2016/06/CO2-for-Forbes.jpg?width=960

https://www.forbes.com/sites/rrapie...wering-carbon-dioxide-emissions/#657d57c75f48

Also migration in to europe and UK, that helps drive down the per capita number as well, but nothing will have changed... it number shuffling and nothing productive is really happening I know, pro immigration governments may be doing it to help with climate change number... maybe... maybe tinfoil

Here is a report,by people who actually went to China to research https://www.americanprogress.org/is...32141/everything-think-know-coal-china-wrong/

In addition, test the US has a lot of coal, but it also has a lot of gas. Gas is a cleaner fuel to begin with, so can achieve the same emissions as coal for less extra cost, it is also much quicker and cheaper to build a gas fired power station than a coal fired one. The gas plants can also respond quicker making them easier to manage.

You can even run a gas turbine (jet engine) on gas meaning a generating set (similar to the ones on ships) can be installed very fast.

Then there is the fact that, in northern regions, space heating is a big energy consumer and gas fired heating is much more efficient and convenient than coal fired heating (which doesn't really exist anymore - it's electric heating whit a coal.fired plant).

Basically, the reason coal miners are losing their jobs is the same reason farriers lost their jobs when the motor car came along. It's nit that they got lazy or worse at their jobs, it's just that.demand for horse shoes fell because there was a better alternative to horses available.

Unless Trump bans natural gas and renewables, those coal jobs are not coming back.

 

[CMDR MadRaptor]

Here is a report,by people who actually went to China to research https://www.americanprogress.org/is...32141/everything-think-know-coal-china-wrong/

In addition, test the US has a lot of coal, but it also has a lot of gas. Gas is a cleaner fuel to begin with, so can achieve the same emissions as coal for less extra cost, it is also much quicker and cheaper to build a gas fired power station than a coal fired one. The gas plants can also respond quicker making them easier to manage.

You can even run a gas turbine (jet engine) on gas meaning a generating set (similar to the ones on ships) can be installed very fast.

Then there is the fact that, in northern regions, space heating is a big energy consumer and gas fired heating is much more efficient and convenient than coal fired heating (which doesn't really exist anymore - it's electric heating whit a coal.fired plant).

Basically, the reason coal miners are losing their jobs is the same reason farriers lost their jobs when the motor car came along. It's nit that they got lazy or worse at their jobs, it's just that.demand for horse shoes fell because there was a better alternative to horses available.

Unless Trump bans natural gas and renewables, those coal jobs are not coming back.

A simple google search for china cancels coal plantes gets your a ton of articles from different sources too. +virtual rep because I can't rep you again.

I usually am pretty dumb when it comes to politics but when it involves science, astronomy and of course our planet, I get versed in what going on.

 

[Sooden]

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...hecking-donald-trumps-statement-withdrawing-/

http://www.cnn.com/2017/06/01/politics/sutter-paris-trump-ignore-facts/index.html

http://climatenexus.org/learn/inter...and-facts-about-cop21-paris-climate-agreement

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...s-climate-change-deal/?utm_term=.98698c98c5fd

https://www.thestreet.com/video/14157632/5-facts-about-the-paris-climate-agreement.html

http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-...o-what-exactly-is-in-the-paris-climate-accord

As for the research paper, even the guys at MIT who did the paper said Trump missed the point with it and misrepresented it's facts

usaual suspect but i will look them over in time

also, as for the MIT paper.. would have to see it and know the department that did it... you know, so i can locate thier funding and affiliations. only fair

I asked for the links as china was/is in over production of power plants, so they may be cutting 100 plants, only because they are not needed... not to reduce Co2... but why not put spin on it for good PR ><

I would add for information.

Yes China uses a lot of coal, china does not have abundant and easily accessible natural gas like the US.

However,they have significantly tightened up their emissions standards and efficiency, new plant standards are higher than the US or EU!

In.addition they are aggressively shutting and upgrading older plants. They are on track for every Chinese coal plant to be cleaner and more efficient that any US plant by 2025.

They are also building out a big renewables push. Their plans (which they are currently on track to meet) will build more renewable capacity by 2030, than the entire US grid.


So the myth that China is doing nothing whilst the US adds costs is just that a myth.

In addition the Paris agreement had no legal limits or sanctions. It simply boiled down to every country declaring it's targeted reduction and how it would achieve them, then reporting progress in a transparent way every 5 years.

That's it. There were no penalties for missing the self set targets, no prescribed methods of achieving them. Countries could even reduce or change their self set targets at any time.

There was no downside to the US remaining. Trump's idea that there is anything to "renegotiate" is just his misunderstanding of the subject.

'However,they have significantly tightened up their emissions standards and efficiency, new plant standards are higher than the US or EU!'... Cool always willing to learn, can you point me in the direction of a white paper that confirms this? Something with numbers would be cool..

Spoiler

'According to John Reilly, who co-directs the Joint Program on Science and Policy of Global Change at MIT, the Paris agreement would reduce global temperature by two-tenths of one degree Celsius compared to earlier climate treaties.'

finding it hard to find any of the big donor information for MIT... very hard. maybe i using the wrong words, maybe some donors don't want to be known. problems is, when you don't know who paying the paper, you don't know how true the news is.

Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation, one donor...who have invested interest in the environment, if the stats had not come out just right... they may have had issues...hmmm think it was 400mill+

Maybe the US can make their new plants cleaner. to equal or even surpass China new ones... atm the USA wont be putting any more money into new coal as they have had new plants shut down (for get the name of it)

'So the myth that China is doing nothing whilst the US adds costs is just that a myth.'... doing nothing... yes that would be a myth if anyone said that

I'm open to fact, if there are facts, then Trump may has gone the wrong direction... and still we would have to see what he has in plan. Bit early to hit the panic button.

tinfoil....so chaina has lots of coal? wouldn't be bad if coal was still part of the US industry... not all US coal would be used in power plants... some would be exported (its a production Vs cost thing, you don't mine for one industry).. hmmm

so the US has gas, they also have coal, the US got lucky... also think they found more Oil


-------------Added
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-me...-withdrawing-/ >has a little on it the 100 power plants, the smallest amount they can get away with and still make it fact

so the 100 powerplants was spin, china no longer needed them.
http://ceenews.info/en/power-statis...f-renewables-amidst-thermal-based-generation/
'Similarly than in the last years the average utilization of power generators declined, laying bare the overcapacities in the Chinese power sector.'

Spoiler

negative numbers mean , producing more power than is used.. e.g wasted...
for nuclear power, this can be hard to void, just how they are

http://chinaenergyportal.org/en/2016-detailed-electricity-statistics/

As for the other links CNN, funny stuff 'Donald Trump's decision on Thursday to abandon the Paris Agreement is apocalyptic '

http://climatenexus.org/learn/inter...and-facts-about-cop21-paris-climate-agreement
didn't see about the 100 power pants, maybe i missed it?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...=.98698c98c5fd
didn't see about the 100 power pants, maybe i missed it? .. same for the rest of the links... please, if i ask for something, give me that not everything else. its not that i don't want to know, but if i'm looking at one statement, that's what i'm looking at, and having to read there other article that don't cover it, is a bit irritating

 

[Riverside]

This is what happens when you elect a thick, moronic, corrupt, arrogant, intellectually-stunted man-child to the most powerful office on the planet.

This is a dark day for planet earth. There needs to be real moves to removing the current bunch from the Whitehouse, whatever it takes.

The USA cannot leave the Paris Accord until 2020. Yesterdays announcement creates headlines & distraction but is inaction rather than decisive, because it puts climate change onto the agenda for the next election, where a (hopefully) better informed US population will get the chance to decide whether they are (as a country) better off in it or out.

If in 3 years the US decided to re-join the rest of the world on this any company that has not spent that time working towards compliance will quickly fail, so I think much of the private sector will aim to stay compliant.

Whenever Trump makes headlines I am reminded of Zaphod Beeblebrox as president of the galaxy (a role that involves no power whatsoever, and merely requires the incumbent to attract attention so no one wonders who's really in charge, a role for which Zaphod was perfectly suited).

 

[JonnyC0mbat]

One of Trumps advisers has just spoken about this
[video=youtube_share;k6WLue-06Ig]https://youtu.be/k6WLue-06Ig[/video]

On the plus side planet earth will carry on regardless of our inaction, it's only every life form that inhabits it that stands to lose out.

 

[CMDR MadRaptor]

The USA cannot leave the Paris Accord until 2020. Yesterdays announcement creates headlines & distraction but is inaction rather than decisive, because it puts climate change onto the agenda for the next election, where a (hopefully) better informed US population will get the chance to decide whether they are (as a country) better off in it or out.

If in 3 years the US decided to re-join the rest of the world on this any company that has not spent that time working towards compliance will quickly fail, so I think much of the private sector will aim to stay compliant.

Whenever Trump makes headlines I am reminded of Zaphod Beeblebrox as president of the galaxy (a role that involves no power whatsoever, and merely requires the incumbent to attract attention so no one wonders who's really in charge, a role for which Zaphod was perfectly suited).

I don't like that comparison Zaphod is a badass, if a little on the dumb side. Still prefer him of Dump, I mean Trump.

Yes it will take time to get out and we can continue forward the real problem with yesterdays announcement was the light it puts the US in. There was no negative consequences of this agreement. We could have always set new terms for ourselves. While it does cause distraction and headlines it sets a precedent to other countries. It says that the biggest contributor to pollution doesn't give a damn. That we don't need to join in with the world on these and it is clear evidence the our president doesn't take scientists serious. It shows that the president is so concerned with destroying what Obama did that he doesn't care who he harms in the process.

 

[Sooden]

The USA cannot leave the Paris Accord until 2020. Yesterdays announcement creates headlines & distraction but is inaction rather than decisive, because it puts climate change onto the agenda for the next election, where a (hopefully) better informed US population will get the chance to decide whether they are (as a country) better off in it or out.

If in 3 years the US decided to re-join the rest of the world on this any company that has not spent that time working towards compliance will quickly fail, so I think much of the private sector will aim to stay compliant.

Whenever Trump makes headlines I am reminded of Zaphod Beeblebrox as president of the galaxy (a role that involves no power whatsoever, and merely requires the incumbent to attract attention so no one wonders who's really in charge, a role for which Zaphod was perfectly suited).

'The USA cannot leave the Paris Accord until 2020'... that good news, if people don't want it to happen, they can vote i'm out.. like you said. but if it installs confidence, then it will be a boost. Hes put his head on the line with this one... gutsy move

not as 'apocalyptic' as CNN would have us think

 

[Sunleader]

I am not sure about that.
Trump doesnt seem to give a crab.
So he might just say we are Out and not care.

Even if he loses on some Court. He will simply not care about that either.
Trump right now gives a crab about the USA being seen as Reliable or Trustworthy. He has proven that over and over. So why we would he care in this case ?

 

[Becks]

The USA cannot leave the Paris Accord until 2020. Yesterdays announcement creates headlines & distraction but is inaction rather than decisive, because it puts climate change onto the agenda for the next election, where a (hopefully) better informed US population will get the chance to decide whether they are (as a country) better off in it or out.

If in 3 years the US decided to re-join the rest of the world on this any company that has not spent that time working towards compliance will quickly fail, so I think much of the private sector will aim to stay compliant.

Whenever Trump makes headlines I am reminded of Zaphod Beeblebrox as president of the galaxy (a role that involves no power whatsoever, and merely requires the incumbent to attract attention so no one wonders who's really in charge, a role for which Zaphod was perfectly suited).

The diplomatic fallout of this decision will hit before 2020 though. With each international treaty/agreement Trump breaks the US becomes less reliable and trustworthy for its allies. But I guess the Twattler in chief doesn't give a crap because now it at least feels like the US comes first.