BREAKING: U.S. O-U-T of Paris Climate Accord

a reply to: TruMcCarthy

Not at all, if other countries supports folks to obtain electical cars more if USA obtain people to have not on oil fuelled cars, then these economies got majority of new type of cars. Producing companies grow, maintenance and so on grow. Oil producing suppliers cannot sell fuel any more and need to ask higher price, so internal combustion goes up for costs, but USA have lack of new technology, so they need to consume import cars a large way.

Covernmets supplay industries to develop technology, but USA not - so this means more imports for US and less exports. All these developed tech sells also third countrys, but this tech is not US produced any more.

a reply to: TheRedneck

There is really no need to prove, because Trump decided do not pay subsidies, but other world do. So after some years, that same Tesla Industries had moved off to USA and developed some way better batteries with copyright about some third country space.

Meanwhile taxes is so high for oil cars, we all wanna try new ones, besides USA and all this old unic machines pile up to States.

a reply to: SaddledMummy

I think you're confused.

The US has electric vehicles; Tesla just makes the nicest ones. They're gaining popularity in urban areas, and larger cities are getting charging stations. The limited range of electric vehicles and the time required to charge them makes them unsuited for non-urban areas, though.

They are also not powerful enough for trucks.

I really don't see how putting $3B into a Paris slush fund is going to provide more results than putting $3B into research here.

TheRedneck

a reply to: TheRedneck

Yes, but point is (if You know how industries works - always subsidial - if Tesla got subsidially benefitted third country, but no home, then company moves off; or other words - if some country tells investors: "We put one dollar more if You investing one." then this new company be born there, not America.

Trump flushed off opportunity, because now all other countrys putting dollars in, excluding american companies.

Because very late on my location, i need to go off, but TLDR, my option:

Climate debate really is not about CO2 rates or global temperature tuning, this is about brake oil industry. Thats what we need to do, but Yours Donald seems against it.

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: SaddledMummy

I think you're confused.

The US has electric vehicles; Tesla just makes the nicest ones. They're gaining popularity in urban areas, and larger cities are getting charging stations. The limited range of electric vehicles and the time required to charge them makes them unsuited for non-urban areas, though.

They are also not powerful enough for trucks.

Or construction vehicles, or trains, or passenger/cargo planes, or cargo ships...

originally posted by: SaddledMummy
Because very late on my location, i need to go off, but TLDR, my option:

Climate debate really is not about CO2 rates or global temperature tuning, this is about brake oil industry. Thats what we need to do, but Yours Donald seems against it.

Not just our President. Anyone who likes to see robust energy and manufacturing sectors is against breaking the oil industry.

Energy = Opportunity.

Oil provides the best amount of energy per volume. Plus plastics, wax, other hydrocarbons, etc.

www.fe.doe.gov...

science.howstuffworks.com...

a reply to: Teikiatsu

Energy = Opportunity.

Oil provides the best amount of energy per volume. Plus plastics, wax, other hydrocarbons, etc.

A nations economic destiny rides on it's energy policy. President Trump just took what is hopefully the first step of a nine point plan that Myron Ebell has laid out for him, there's a ways to go yet. I can see some heads exploding and the media foaming at the mouth as he continues with the blueprint for America's energy future.

originally posted by: D8Tee
hopefully

You said it.

Hope in one hand and # in the other.

originally posted by: D8Tee
a reply to: Teikiatsu

Energy = Opportunity.

Oil provides the best amount of energy per volume. Plus plastics, wax, other hydrocarbons, etc.

A nations economic destiny rides on it's energy policy. President Trump just took what is hopefully the first step of a nine point plan that Myron Ebell has laid out for him, there's a ways to go yet. I can see some heads exploding and the media foaming at the mouth as he continues with the blueprint for America's energy future.

I would love to see across the board development. Make solar and wind more viable. Bring back hydrogen cells. Work on the thermal depolymerization. Thorium thorium thorium! Nuclear energy baby!

The EU says Trump wants to untie itself from the "world". What that really means, in reality, is that the EU believes to be the only righteous world.. The EU will attempt, in the coming months, to orchestrate a huge nuclear terrorist provocation against the US to attempt to save the myth of the green party. This idea is not likely to go anywhere. But the US should remember that if a big nuclear explosion happens in NYC or in some other densely populated area, Minuteman against Brussels, Rome, Berlin, London and Paris have to be launched, not to allow some people to fall into this conspiracy theory, that the terrorist attack was actually orchestrated by the US govt. itself.

a reply to: Flanker86

USA should launch pre emptive strike on Brussels if they are gonna do that. Someone has to tell Trump the EU's plans.

a reply to: SaddledMummy

if You know how industries works - always subsidial

No. Just no.

Industry does not work under subsidies... industry fails under subsidies. That's exactly what's wrong with the present economy. If subsidies are required for industry to operate, then government controls all and we live under an oligarchy.

Industry works by filling a public need for people. Government is only there to ensure fairness and equity, not to determine which industry deserves to survive and which deserves to fail. The people decide that through purchasing power.

You are indeed confused.

TheRedneck

a reply to: Teikiatsu

I would love to see across the board development. Make solar and wind more viable. Bring back hydrogen cells. Work on the thermal depolymerization. Thorium thorium thorium! Nuclear energy baby!

I'm not as excited about wind and solar, mainly because I don't believe they can be made viable on a large scale. There's just too many technical issues with solar. We've been trying to force it into viability with subsidies, but all that has done is to make money disappear. More progress is actually accomplished for less cost by funding university research programs.

Wind has proved to have limited viability, but it would be nice if we could have a civilized discussion about effects of scale. Every blade slows the winds by a tiny amount, so at what point is there a noticeable change in the climate from this effect?

Hydrogen is not energy production; it is energy storage.

Thorium sounds promising, but we should proceed with extreme caution. I love nuclear power, but I am also cautious about it. Moving too fast too soon leads to situations like Three Mile Island (hazardous emergency), Chernobyl (contained ecological destruction), or Fukushima (widespread ongoing ecological apocalypse). We must be careful, and being careful takes longer.

I personally like wave energy. Much of the population lives within 100 miles of the coast, so using wave energy (wasted ecological energy) could put a massive dent in our oil dependency. The technology is almost ready for commercial release, and relies in large part on proven hydroelectric technology.

I also believe that, despite the hoaxes, zero-point energy could one day become viable. I'm not holding my breath, as a major breakthrough is required, but I do maintain hope.

Ridicule that last statement as you wish. I'm used to it.

TheRedneck

originally posted by: OtherSideOfTheCoin
What a utter moron.

Honestly this is just awful, utter crap.

Climate change denial at this level is total insanity, science is not a opinion, we are heading towards a climate disaster and Trump has just put the nail in the coffin.

Environment and sustainability is one area that your average conservative is on the wrong side of history, and that will be shown to be true over time.

There is a library of scientific literature on these topics.

Regulating individuals' and corporations' "externalities" or impact on the environment is NOT fascism or government overreach, it is protecting the commons and rights of other people, both currently and future generations. You don't have the "freedom" to destroy the environment for others.

Finally, quite literally if conservatives applied their very own concept of government, individuals, and society "living within their means" and "balancing their checkbooks," THAT IS WHAT ENVIRONMENTAL AND SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT MEANS, just on a holistic level that includes nature. If conservatives applied their very own ideas on government and business to include the environment, then they would have to conservationalists. But many don't want to out of greed or selfishness, hence they ignore or deny science on environmental issues.

This is why I say "there is nothing conservative about that."

a reply to: Quetzalcoatl14

Your point is apt: environmental sustainability is indeed akin to living within one's means economically. We agree on that.

But I must take issue with your assumption that 'conservatuves' (God, can we not get better descriptors?) are against environmental sustainability. I, for instance, simply see no benefit on tossing billions at an issue which is irrelevant.

Two people, each faced with identical prospects of purchasing rental property, might look at the proposal differently. One might say, "I can't afford to make the payments right now, so I'll pass." The other might say, "I am certain I can rent this property for enough to cover most or all of the payments, so I think I'll buy the property." Both are living within their means; both probably made a correct decision, but they chose different approaches to economic stability.

Imagine the eye rolls if people started berating one of them because of their decision! But that's what we get when talking climate.

TheRedneck

originally posted by: OtherSideOfTheCoin
What a utter moron.

Honestly this is just awful, utter crap.

Climate change denial at this level is total insanity, science is not a opinion, we are heading towards a climate disaster and Trump has just put the nail in the coffin.

Well why in the hell didn't we have a global meltdown when just about every home furnace ect and heat source of any kind and industry in the world was using coal?

First...Trump did the right thing. Just because he decided not to give trillions of dollars from our economy to other countries to keep their emissions down, doesn't mean we won't cut ours. This was nothing but another liberal Obama milking of America's wealth. Trump understood and said...SCREW THAT! That doesn't mean we won't...and it means we should cut our pollution.

Second...Electric cars? Really? How many of you know that depending upon where you get your electricity...your electric car may be a BIGGER burden on the Earth? If you live where non-environmentally efficient electricity is produced...and...if you add to the problem with the extra cost and the batteries required to power these cars, you may actually be hurting the environment more than driving a gas guzzler.

Read...learn...don't be a fricken' idiot.

a reply to: TheRedneck

With recent breakthroughs with batteries made with Glass in them instead of lithium they might become less exspensive and more economical before long. The creator of the lithium battery is the guy who came up with this new one. i think its to last 10 times longer per charge and recharges in minutes vs hours.

originally posted by: Logarock
Well why in the hell didn't we have a global meltdown when just about every home furnace ect and heat source of any kind and industry in the world was using coal?

Populations were a lot lower, as were energy demands.

Also, there were still a lot of issues related to coal use.