It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Watch Live: President Trump announces his decision on the Paris Climate Accord

page: 10
18
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 1 2017 @ 06:00 PM
link   

originally posted by: UKTruth
Statement from 3 leading European countries:

The governments of Italy, France, and Germany Thursday flatly rejected U.S. President Donald Trump’s offer to renegotiate the Paris climate accord. “We deem the momentum generated in Paris in December 2015 irreversible and we firmly believe that the Paris Agreement cannot be renegotiated, since it is a vital instrument for our planet, societies and economies,” the leaders of the three countries said in a joint statement.


So, clearly they are not that interested in the planet after all. If they were they'd be eager to negotiate.


A very sneaky way of them getting out of it too.




posted on Jun, 1 2017 @ 06:05 PM
link   

originally posted by: UKTruth
Statement from 3 leading European countries:

The governments of Italy, France, and Germany Thursday flatly rejected U.S. President Donald Trump’s offer to renegotiate the Paris climate accord. “We deem the momentum generated in Paris in December 2015 irreversible and we firmly believe that the Paris Agreement cannot be renegotiated, since it is a vital instrument for our planet, societies and economies,” the leaders of the three countries said in a joint statement.


So, clearly they are not that interested in the planet after all. If they were they'd be eager to negotiate.

Or it could be seen as weakness.



posted on Jun, 1 2017 @ 06:18 PM
link   

originally posted by: proximo
a reply to: veracity

Yeah, I recycle.

Oil will not go away anytime soon - even if none of it is used on energy, plastic and tons of other materials are made from it. You need to get used to the idea it is not going anywhere. With that said the idea that oil money is the source of all our corruption is short sighted, Big finance is a far far larger corrupting factor.

Look, I really don't think there are many "Climate Deniers". That is just a phrase used to shout down anyone who is against carbon taxes, anyone who questions the impending doom story. Only a true idiot would say climate does not change, science clearly shows that is the case - it also shows CO2 levels have been way higher than they are now, but somehow life persevered. The science is also clear if CO2 goes up - and here is the key - everything else stays the same then the temperature will increase. But there are many other factors - which is exactly why the models suck, the suns activity level, there are trillions of organisms that eat the CO2, and many other sources besides man that create it. It is ridiculous that anyone can claim with a straight face they can model all of that. For gods sake they can't accurately forecast the weather three days in advance, let alone three decades.

I understand the desire to want to live in an ideal world with no pollution, no war, no hunger, and no suffering. But it is just not remotely realistic. Humans are selfish - it is what drives everything we do.

We will not stop polluting if it is good for us individually, All we are talking about here is reducing emissions, not eliminating them because everyone knows that is impossible. This is just like stating there should never be conflict or war - well duh, but we have not evolved nearly enough for that to be realistic, and it isn't going to happen in either of our lifetimes.

My whole problem with lefties is they generally think with their emotions and not reality. There is not unlimited money, we cannot afford to give everyone a perfect life. Even if we could it would never happen because powerful people in control would not allow it because power corrupts - always. That is why true socialism is impossible at least until we evolve.


Not only are humans selfish...they are stupid. "Lefties" dont just think with their emotions...they use facts as well. If righties used more emotion and facts...they would be more legitimate...HEY, they would be more like Lefties


You use alot of opinion in your post as if they are factual...that is really annoying to me and says alot about the poster. Try to stick to facts and admit when you are giving an opinion.
edit on 1-6-2017 by veracity because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 1 2017 @ 06:20 PM
link   
If you're an environmentalist and you really want us to switch to green energy across the country, you should be against subsidizing today's green energy production companies. The technology wasn't ready to go commercial yet, it's not economically viable. All the money we've spent subsidizing them has only resulted in a small percentage of our national power production being green, with a negligible reduction in the impact on the environment.

All these years, instead of wasting money for little to no positive effect, all that money could've been spent on R&D trying to advance green energy technology to the point where it is efficient and economically sustainable. Then more companies would start producing power that way and more people would be able to afford to switch to it, no subsidies needed.

Long term its better if we stop subsidizing these inefficient companies today and invest more in research/development so we can actually afford to make the switch in the future.



posted on Jun, 1 2017 @ 06:20 PM
link   
Many celebrities totally freaking out.

Bitter, cussing on Twitter, name calling.

Celebrities Blast Trump’s ‘Shameful’ Plan to Withdraw From Paris Climate Accord




posted on Jun, 1 2017 @ 06:28 PM
link   
In honor of Trump s__t-canning this loony unratified "treaty", I spent about an hour on my CR450 tearing up one of my corn fields this afternoon.

Leftists whining about this act of sanity are basically saying that they agree with the cornerstone of the Paris Climate Scam -- the worst polluter in the world, China, is exempt for 20 years while already very green-friendly America gets to lose millions of jobs and trillions of dollars.

Maybe that's why they keep losing?



posted on Jun, 1 2017 @ 06:30 PM
link   



posted on Jun, 1 2017 @ 06:45 PM
link   

originally posted by: xuenchen
Perfect Timing .....

Mas sive Crack in Antarctic Ice Shelf Grows 11 Miles in 6 Days, Potentially Creating World’s Largest Iceberg

Time to start making your final arrangements !!!



WOW!


the resulting iceberg will measure 31,000 square miles, represent 10 percent of the ice shelf’s original mass and be larger than the state of Rhode Island.


31,000 square miles is a hell of a lot bigger than Rhode Island... More like South Carolina!

Some enterprising entrepreneur should figure out a way to tow this iceberg into tropical waters, build a massive resort on it, and cash in for the next 20 years or so as it slowly melts.

They could call it Partyarctica...

edit on 1-6-2017 by SBMcG because: Correction



posted on Jun, 1 2017 @ 06:50 PM
link   
a reply to: SBMcG

IceZilla on the move !




posted on Jun, 1 2017 @ 07:07 PM
link   

originally posted by: UKTruth
Statement from 3 leading European countries:

The governments of Italy, France, and Germany Thursday flatly rejected U.S. President Donald Trump’s offer to renegotiate the Paris climate accord. “We deem the momentum generated in Paris in December 2015 irreversible and we firmly believe that the Paris Agreement cannot be renegotiated, since it is a vital instrument for our planet, societies and economies,” the leaders of the three countries said in a joint statement.


So, clearly they are not that interested in the planet after all. If they were they'd be eager to negotiate.


Why should they renegotiate? They spent over a decade on this deal, at great time and expense. The time for talk is over, now they'll go through with it. Almost every single nation found the document acceptable, and the US found it acceptable too but Trump rejected it over political maneuvering. Considering he's now got about 4 years of time to quietly accept it before a withdraw is official, I wouldn't put too much faith in this.

It's a good deal, and the US has no right or ability to dictate terms to the rest of the world. Today was basically just an announcement that 4 years from now the US MIGHT back out of it.

It will depend on how the political winds blow at the time.
edit on 1-6-2017 by Aazadan because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 1 2017 @ 07:13 PM
link   
a reply to: Aazadan




It's a good deal, and the US has no right or ability to dictate terms to the rest of the world.
Why is it a good deal? Please explain in your own words.


Nature magazine says it's not all that great.

Continued US membership in the Paris Agreement on climate would be symbolic and have no effect on US emissions. Instead, it would reveal the weaknesses of the agreement, prevent new opportunities from emerging, and gift greater leverage to a recalcitrant administration.




edit on 1-6-2017 by D8Tee because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 1 2017 @ 07:13 PM
link   

originally posted by: xuenchen
He's calling out China and India !!!!

Unfair to the USA !!

Watch somebody announce a new Coal Emission Filter soon !!



Coal is a dying technology. Funny thing is though, climate change regulation that pushes solar/wind (which the US is leaders in), not to mention natural gas which we have A LOT of, would only benefit us economically.

The GOP needs to make token efforts towards fixing coal though because Appalachia, which only supplies 20% of our coal to begin with is a third world hell hole of chronic unemployment, with an unskilled population. The only thing they know how to do is do meth, brew moonshine, and mine coal the old fashioned way with pickaxes. Therefore, it's the only job they can try and bring to the area.



posted on Jun, 1 2017 @ 07:16 PM
link   
a reply to: Aazadan

So say the MSM.

But ....

CLEAN COAL TECHNOLOGIES




posted on Jun, 1 2017 @ 07:16 PM
link   

originally posted by: D8Tee
Why is it a good deal? Please explain in your own words.


It brings in China and India, something the US has been trying (and failing) to do for two decades. Getting those two developing nations into an actual framework for CO2 emissions is huge.

It doesn't matter what regulations we enforce on ourselves in the US. It's a global issue, and when 1/3 of the worlds population, contained in just two countries simply won't deal with you, then it renders any home grown attempts to fix the climate null and void.



posted on Jun, 1 2017 @ 07:29 PM
link   

originally posted by: proximo
This might be a legitimate point except for one huge problem - All countries are not remotely treated the same in this agreement.

Why is it wrong to ask for fair treatment?


Because not all countries are equal, in either their ability to fund change, ability to implement it, total pollution, or pollution per capita.



posted on Jun, 1 2017 @ 07:32 PM
link   
a reply to: Aazadan

China will solve the whole problem in 10 years with solar panels and lithium ion batteries.




posted on Jun, 1 2017 @ 07:39 PM
link   
When the deranged Liberals cry as hard as they are doing now, you know Trump hit a home run.
This is announcement is almost as good as the news we got on election night. Liberal heads are exploding from coast to coast again.






posted on Jun, 1 2017 @ 07:44 PM
link   

originally posted by: proximo
Predicting the future is what this is all based on. The belief that we are all doomed if we do not reduce emissions immediately is what the entire need for the Paris accord is based on. If the actual warming that occurs is far less than the predicted doom the entire supposed necessity of the agreement goes away.


The main issue is ocean acidification which we can measure, know is happening, and can compare to historical rates. The problem with the counter argument that this is just part of the planets natural cycle, is that limestone quite clearly shows acidification over time, and what used to take 10,000 years is now happening inside of a decade. It's easily provable what's happening right now, and it's measured in CO2. Also, you can throw out everything else, the ocean issue alone is enough of a reason to address the problem. It's provable and has been proven.



Let me ask you this - An Asteroid is almost certain to hit earth and wipe out all life - and we don't know when it will happen. Should we spend trillions on an asteroid defense system? To me this is actually more likely to wipe us out then global warming - why, because we already well on our way to cutting emissions drastically with no government action needed. But what are we doing to defend against asteroids? Nothing.


We are. What exactly do you think is one of the long term goals of space exploration? It's to gain the technology to prevent those types of asteroids from hitting us.



Sure it would be nice. It would also be nice to end all world hunger. Guess what we can't afford to do that either.
If you were listening, and not just fuming - you should have heard him say he was willing to renegotiate, and join the deal.
Also he never said he did not believe in climate change - in fact I have heard him say exactly the opposite. His position is the same as mine - it is a cost benefit analysis - and right now the costs out weigh the benefits for the USA.


Ending world hunger is easy, we have plenty of food and plenty of money to do so. That's more of a political problem in that distribution of resources falls under dictators who aren't always going to distribute whatever you give them in an equitable fashion.



posted on Jun, 1 2017 @ 07:50 PM
link   

originally posted by: SBMcG
In honor of Trump s__t-canning this loony unratified "treaty", I spent about an hour on my CR450 tearing up one of my corn fields this afternoon.

Leftists whining about this act of sanity are basically saying that they agree with the cornerstone of the Paris Climate Scam -- the worst polluter in the world, China, is exempt for 20 years while already very green-friendly America gets to lose millions of jobs and trillions of dollars.

Maybe that's why they keep losing?


Look at it from China's point of view. The US and Europe were able to take advantage of cheap and plentiful coal supplies to power an industrial revolution and modernize their countries. Why should China be forced to pay a higher price on clean power in order to do the same thing. They want the same cheap power we had. Only getting it for 20 years rather than the 100 we had it for, is already a significant shortening of the time table.

That's a fair deal, and a good one for us. They spend 20 years on old technology, while we get to modernize again, and perfect new technology, then we get to sell that tech to them, in order for them to clean up.



posted on Jun, 1 2017 @ 07:57 PM
link   

originally posted by: xuenchen
So say the MSM.

But ....

CLEAN COAL TECHNOLOGIES



Clean coal is not clean. Clean coal is named that because it's cleaner than regular coal, but regular coal is the only thing it's cleaner than. Deaths per kwH produced still rank coal (including clean coal) as the most deadly source of power.

But none of that is relevant, the market dictates what will and won't happen. Natural gas is cheaper and cleaner than "clean" coal. It's also more plentiful. Out of the non renewables natural gas will be the leader in 20 years (though there will still be a lot of coal plants around, since they last 50-100 years). Nuclear has had some recent scares, but if done right it's a very good option as well. Plus, everyone always forgets about geothermal, which is very relevant to both the US and China.



new topics

top topics



 
18
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join