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.

 

Bloomberg Promises $15 Million To Help Make Up For U.S. Withdrawal From Climate Deal

page: 2
18
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 2 2017 @ 10:52 PM
link   
a reply to: Christosterone

Why not make it 1.5 Billion?

en.wikipedia.org...

Joker.
edit on 2-6-2017 by Wildmanimal because: link?

edit on 2-6-2017 by Wildmanimal because: Spoiled links




posted on Jun, 2 2017 @ 11:07 PM
link   


some people believe that if they feel strongly about something, they should be allowed to force others to adhere to their beliefs


You mean like forcing war, capitalism, prayer, nationalism, forced childbirth and other policies on the world that conservatives do??



posted on Jun, 2 2017 @ 11:51 PM
link   
Well, $15M is a little shy of $2B, but at least he's putting his money where his mouth is. But he seems to think someone wants to stop him...


Michael Bloomberg is pledging to fill a funding gap created by President Trump's decision to withdraw from the Paris climate accord, offering up to $15 million to support the U.N. agency that helps countries implement the agreement.

"Americans will honor and fulfill the Paris Agreement by leading from the bottom up — and there isn't anything Washington can do to stop us," said Bloomberg, the former New York City mayor who now serves as the U.N.'s special envoy on cities and climate change.
Source: www.npr.org...

The terms of the Paris Accord are not illegal in the United States... they are simply not mandatory. Bloomberg can donate as much of his money as he wants to whatever cause he wants. Go for it, Mike!

As for the other mayors... you were elected to serve your constituents. If those constituents want you to follow the recommendations of the Paris Accord... go for it! If they don't, well, they'll have a chance to express their displeasure at the ballot box.

I know what he wants... he wants to turn Trump's fulfillment of a campaign promise into a firestorm of Republican hatred. Not gonna happen; your money, your choice.

TheRedneck



posted on Jun, 2 2017 @ 11:54 PM
link   

originally posted by: CB328



some people believe that if they feel strongly about something, they should be allowed to force others to adhere to their beliefs


You mean like forcing war, capitalism, prayer, nationalism, forced childbirth and other policies on the world that conservatives do??


Your off topic deflection has failed.

No one is saying those things are good either. Freedom isn't under attack from just your side of the aisle. I am against all partisan schemes to reduce my personal liberty.



posted on Jun, 3 2017 @ 12:04 AM
link   
a reply to: CB328


You mean like forcing war, capitalism, prayer, nationalism, forced childbirth and other policies on the world that conservatives do??

  • No one is forced to fight wars. The military is volunteer only.
  • Anyone is perfectly welcome to relocate to a country that does not practise capitalism.
  • No one is being forced to pray in the US. Many are being denied the right to pray, but that's not the same thing.
  • Abortion is legal in the United States.

TheRedneck



posted on Jun, 3 2017 @ 02:47 AM
link   
Well he is certainly welcome to throw his money into that boondoggle...

But wouldn't it be better to spend that money of his on NYC infrastructure?? I mean he's giving it away anyway, why not to the benefit of his neighbors?

Or would that be too progressive???



posted on Jun, 3 2017 @ 03:03 AM
link   
a reply to: Christosterone

15 million? Big deal, Obama gave the Green Climate Fund 500 million three days before he left office.

Pony up Bloomberg, you got a ways to go before you meet the commitment.

The Green Climate Funds goal is to have 100 billion per year in the slush fund by 2020.

Can't see it happening without the USA bankrolling it.



posted on Jun, 3 2017 @ 03:11 AM
link   
a reply to: Christosterone

No where did he say hes spending his money. He is planning on raising the funds and even tells you how. That statement of support will involve donations. But 15 million is a drop in the bucket. US tax payers all ready gave a billion under obama. They were trying to raise 3 billion. Since there is only like 3 countries not signing it you think the rest of the world can come up with two billion. Unless of course thus is just a scheme to transfer wealth.
edit on 6/3/17 by dragonridr because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 3 2017 @ 03:30 AM
link   
a reply to: Christosterone

More super rich people should do this, apparently throwing dollar bills at an avalanche will stop it. Even if there is no avalanche



posted on Jun, 3 2017 @ 07:58 AM
link   

originally posted by: Mike.Ockizard
a reply to: xuenchen

i'd love to see the details on where all the money put into this so far has been spent.


Here ya go
Scroll Down :

President Obama’s Taxpayer-Backed Green Energy Failures
Most went bankrupt shortly after receiving the money.(or are now 2012 article)
Any questions ?




posted on Jun, 3 2017 @ 08:04 AM
link   
a reply to: Christosterone

If they want to fund good for them.



posted on Jun, 3 2017 @ 08:07 AM
link   
a reply to: Christosterone

I applaud him, and all those complaining about it that are rich should pledge also, better them than my hard earned and hard working tax dollars

Got to love the supporters of globalism.



posted on Jun, 3 2017 @ 08:09 AM
link   
a reply to: Christosterone




Bloomberg's plan calls for his foundation to work with other groups, from governments to philanthropies, that want to support the U.N.'s climate change agency.


Yay, new earmarks.



posted on Jun, 3 2017 @ 08:14 AM
link   
a reply to: Christosterone




posted on Jun, 3 2017 @ 08:24 AM
link   
a reply to: Gothmog

Smh...

"Asterisk denotes companies that have claimed bankruptcy"



posted on Jun, 3 2017 @ 08:31 AM
link   

originally posted by: CB328



some people believe that if they feel strongly about something, they should be allowed to force others to adhere to their beliefs


You mean like forcing war, capitalism, prayer, nationalism, forced childbirth and other policies on the world that conservatives do??


When prayer was forced upon you, did it hurt?



posted on Jun, 3 2017 @ 09:14 AM
link   

originally posted by: Mike.Ockizard
a reply to: Gothmog

Smh...

"Asterisk denotes companies that have claimed bankruptcy"




And , as stated , that was the list compiled in 2012. Many more now



posted on Jun, 3 2017 @ 05:12 PM
link   
I'm frankly not even sure how off-topic this post is but at least Bloomberg see's the forest for the trees.

I think President Trump's biggest failure in this is that he cant see the difference between anthropogenic climate shift from natural climate shift. I think perhaps if he had a larger vocabulary for one and a basic understanding of what they mean for two he could more eloquently express which facets of climate change he disagrees with without causing unnecessary turmoil. Especially if he presents it in a fashion by which all parties believe they have the ability to negotiate on the matter.

There is more than plenty of empirical evidence to support a shifting of the climate, what there isn't enough of is evidence to support that it is man-made climate shift. But for those here who are so militant on supporting almost anything President Trump does, I would ask you this, if an Earthquake or Tornado or Lightning or any natural catastrophy brought downb your house or any of your property, would you pay out of pocket to repair that? Or would you collect from your respective insurance companies? I think we all know the answer to that which would make the majority of you hypocrites. If the same natural disasters brought down the George Washington Bridge would you not want to use federal funds to have it repaired ASAP because humans didn't destroy the bridge? Would you not want to use taxpayers funds to do everything possible to prevent to the maximum level possible these things to even occur?

I just don't understand some of you, honestly...
edit on 3-6-2017 by alphabetaone because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 3 2017 @ 05:18 PM
link   
a reply to: alphabetaone




There is more than plenty of empirical evidence to support a shifting of the climate.

1. Sea Level rise is not accelerating.
2. Temperatures have not went up in 18 years besides this last el nino
3. There has been no increase in Hurricanes or Cylones.

Where's all your empirical evidence?

There is scientific consensus man is not the main cause.


edit on 3-6-2017 by D8Tee because: (no reason given)

edit on 3-6-2017 by D8Tee because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 3 2017 @ 05:21 PM
link   

originally posted by: alphabetaone
I'm frankly not even sure how off-topic this post is but at least Bloomberg see's the forest for the trees.

I think President Trump's biggest failure in this is that he cant see the difference between anthropogenic climate shift from natural climate shift. I think perhaps if he had a larger vocabulary for one and a basic understanding of what they mean for two he could more eloquently express which facets of climate change he disagrees with without causing unnecessary turmoil. Especially if he presents it in a fashion by which all parties believe they have the ability to negotiate on the matter.

There is more than plenty of empirical evidence to support a shifting of the climate, what there isn't enough of is evidence to support that it is man-made climate shift. But for those here who are so militant on supporting almost anything President Trump does, I would ask you this, if an Earthquake or Tornado or Lightning or any natural catastrophy brought downb your house or any of your property, would you pay out of pocket to repair that? Or would you collect from your respective insurance companies? I think we all know the answer to that which would make the majority of you hypocrites. If the same natural disasters brought down the George Washington Bridge would you not want to use federal funds to have it repaired ASAP because humans didn't destroy the bridge? Would you not want to use taxpayers funds to do everything possible to prevent to the maximum level possible these things to even occur?

I just don't understand some of you, honestly...


If a lightning bolt hits my house, I collect insurance based on the policy *I* paid for, into the insurance system.

I do not collect money from policies that my neighbors paid for. And I certainly don't get a subsidised insurance policy paid for by more wealthy people. If I live in a house prone to lightning strikes, then I pay a higher premium.

If a natural disaster takes down a bridge, we don't make Canada or Mexico pay for it. We pay for it from internal tax revenue.

Work on your analogies.



new topics




 
18
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join