Trump pulling out of Paris Climate Deal - Here's why I think it's great!

[Jet Cash]

I understand that the world is going through the next phase of climate change, and we may be approaching a mini-ice age. Temperatures are the lowest for 50 years. Will we have to introduce a new global warming initiative to avoid the big freeze.

[freedomno1]

Climate deals only last as long as a president stays in power, unless they get 3-4 terms in the USA only binding obligations will ever change that outcome. That said regardless of whether they are in or not in aggregate everyone suffers from the greenhouse effect, and cancer near the production locations. I say plant more trees so we can farm them later ^^.

I think that all the same things like climatic arrangements should be supported by all countries that use very large production. The fact is that there is a large percentage of the impact of CO2 emissions on the atmosphere. Of course, you can fix this situation, plant many trees, but at the same time a person destroys a large number of forest points. We do not have time to recreate what has already been destroyed.

I'm just curious on what you said, farm trees. Get the harvest probably, not farm the trees. Everyone suffers from the causes that humans have done here on our planet and there should be done at least something. We are already on the verge of the destruction of the earth. The abnormal weather, humidity, ice in the Antarctica reduces, etc. There are a lot of signs that we are destroying the planet.

When I say plant trees I meant forestry industries who want to sell them for profit later, the people who plant pine trees and conifers for timber and pulp and Christmas trees, in the end the tree is fallen but because their is an economic interest people replant their fields and put new trees in instead of leaving it clear cut and left alone to be turned into pasture land.

It would be good to keep the trees in general since they produce more Oxygen when they mature but it doesn't hurt to clear the fields now and then to reduce the forest fire risk and revive the vegetation, nature does a good job of doing that over the years without human intervention the problem is that if we firefight and stop the burns the fires that do happen will be bigger and more dangerous than if they are allowed to burn, and new vegetation may not be able to grow in the underbrush due to the lack of sunlight so forest management does have a role for cutting down and replanting old trees now and then they eat CO2 to grow hence its a viable strategy in eco protection.
http://www.fopap.org/the_truth_about_trees.html

[In-Op]

People need to really look at what this was going to cost and who was making the profits and where the loop holes were constructed into the policy.

This really is a clear case of the Trojen Horse and redistribution of wealth. It really had nothing to do with solving climate change.

Follow the money.

[Spendulus]

People need to really look at what this was going to cost and who was making the profits and where the loop holes were constructed into the policy.

This really is a clear case of the Trojen Horse and redistribution of wealth. It really had nothing to do with solving climate change.

Follow the money.

Bingo.

[Sithara007]

I understand that the world is going through the next phase of climate change, and we may be approaching a mini-ice age. Temperatures are the lowest for 50 years. Will we have to introduce a new global warming initiative to avoid the big freeze.

I don't know from where you are getting such strange data. The average global temperatures have been increasing ever since 1970s, and there is no hint of a "mini-ice age" anytime during 1970-2017.

[bones261]

Climate deals only last as long as a president stays in power, unless they get 3-4 terms in the USA only binding obligations will ever change that outcome. That said regardless of whether they are in or not in aggregate everyone suffers from the greenhouse effect, and cancer near the production locations. I say plant more trees so we can farm them later ^^.

I think that all the same things like climatic arrangements should be supported by all countries that use very large production. The fact is that there is a large percentage of the impact of CO2 emissions on the atmosphere. Of course, you can fix this situation, plant many trees, but at the same time a person destroys a large number of forest points. We do not have time to recreate what has already been destroyed.

Although planting trees would have a small positive impact, we are releasing the carbon dioxide that it took plant life and microbial life many eras to sequester.

[crwth]

Climate deals only last as long as a president stays in power, unless they get 3-4 terms in the USA only binding obligations will ever change that outcome. That said regardless of whether they are in or not in aggregate everyone suffers from the greenhouse effect, and cancer near the production locations. I say plant more trees so we can farm them later ^^.

I think that all the same things like climatic arrangements should be supported by all countries that use very large production. The fact is that there is a large percentage of the impact of CO2 emissions on the atmosphere. Of course, you can fix this situation, plant many trees, but at the same time a person destroys a large number of forest points. We do not have time to recreate what has already been destroyed.

I'm just curious on what you said, farm trees. Get the harvest probably, not farm the trees. Everyone suffers from the causes that humans have done here on our planet and there should be done at least something. We are already on the verge of the destruction of the earth. The abnormal weather, humidity, ice in the Antarctica reduces, etc. There are a lot of signs that we are destroying the planet.

When I say plant trees I meant forestry industries who want to sell them for profit later, the people who plant pine trees and conifers for timber and pulp and Christmas trees, in the end the tree is fallen but because their is an economic interest people replant their fields and put new trees in instead of leaving it clear cut and left alone to be turned into pasture land.

It would be good to keep the trees in general since they produce more Oxygen when they mature but it doesn't hurt to clear the fields now and then to reduce the forest fire risk and revive the vegetation, nature does a good job of doing that over the years without human intervention the problem is that if we firefight and stop the burns the fires that do happen will be bigger and more dangerous than if they are allowed to burn, and new vegetation may not be able to grow in the underbrush due to the lack of sunlight so forest management does have a role for cutting down and replanting old trees now and then they eat CO2 to grow hence its a viable strategy in eco protection.
http://www.fopap.org/the_truth_about_trees.html

That's definitely true and that would be a lot of help with the environment. And I like your saying that what you said, human intervention, that's where the problem happens (if you are negative and destroying the environment to make a profit). That's what people wants nowadays, pure money and that's going to be a problem because they just care about the money and not the world they are leaving in. It's like saying "Climate Change is a Conspiracy" and that's just turning your eyes away from the problem, running away from it. It's just that it's a stupid decision.

[criptix]

Trump did the right thing. Other nations such as Saudi Arabia and China are causing more pollution (on a per capita basis), and still the burden of reducing the climate change is falling on just the western nations and Japan. Everyone has to share the burden. 

Trump did the right thing. Other nations such as Saudi Arabia and China are causing more pollution (on a per capita basis), and still the burden of reducing the climate change is falling on just the western nations and Japan. Everyone has to share the burden. 

Before you sing the praises of this idiot Trump remember that to date only two countries have not signed the Paris agreement — Syria and Nicaragua. Russia, Iran and the DPRK has not yet ratified it. Barack Obama, who has put his signature under the Paris agreement, declare today, June 1, because of Trump's "the United States joined the handful of countries that reject the future".

That still doesn't address the main concern. Right now, most of the burden is on the United States and the European Union. China and countries such as Saudi Arabia are not required to make much sacrifices. The agreement needs to be modified, to make it palatable to all.

Stop telling 3rd world people some bullshit lies.
China is the nr. 1 producer of renewable energy.
There are more then enough studies that say china will have peak energy consumption in the next few years.
China is placed rank 56 or something re co2 emission per capita.
The industry nations could take an example from china in this regard.

 yes.  Let's every country over-populate to reduce our per capita emissions; take the lesson from China.

Even if this is sarcasm it makes no sense.

Majority of chinese are farmers that produce pretty much zero emmisions.
Emission per capita is important and a good indicator.

 Don't worry.  You'll figure it out someday sarcasm or otherwise.

Well if you tried to look smart or something similiar you miserably failed.

/Edit
Ah and i already quoted your post. No reason to delete it. ^^"

  I tend to react sometimes and later realize there is no point in arguing which is why I deleted the post.  It wasn't the first post I deleted and it wont be the last.  I failed in that I didn't delete it quickly enough and now I feel compelled to continue a ridiculous argument.

 Firstly, I would like to point out to you that sarcasm need not be ironic (it appears you weren't aware of that).

 Secondly, there is absolutely no reason to take lessons from China about CO2 emissions; if you look at the ratio of GDP to carbon dioxide emissions you will see that China ranks #175 in the world.  Seems like they need a lesson in efficiency! Their low emissions per capita is only achievable due to their crushing over-population consisting of mostly impoverished subsistence farmers who derive little or no benefit from China's CO2 emissions.

"Even if" means it could be but must not. If that is not the meaning feel free to explain me that phrase please.
Your intentions were not clear for me that is why i wrote it like that.


You just repeated what i said (china has a lot of farmers with zero emission). Do you expect me to not know what i just told you?

Lets talk about some points:

1. You realize there is a difference between a developing and an industry nation?

2. The learning was regarding their energy mix which has the highest % of renewable energy in the world and they want to increase it further to shut down nuclear and coal plants.
For a fucking developing nation which 20-30 years ago was a 3rd world nation that is more then incredible.

3. Point 2 directly means that when the farmers with zero emission start the urbanisation process they will use energy primarily from renewable sources with close to zero emission.

 I don't understand what you find incredible about a country choking on its own excrement deciding to build a humongous hydroelectric dam (which is over 100 year old technology) to mitigate its pollution woes.  It's sensible but not incredible.  Fortunately they had the geography to support the effort as well as the assistance and expertise of companies and gov't agencies in Brazil, Canada, Germany, France, Norway, Sweden, Italy, Japan, Scotland, Switzerland, USA and the UK as well as some help from the Wold Bank.

 China is no longer a developing nation, they are a world super-power with a dual personality using the "developing country" moniker as a crutch to keep from making any promises about carbon emission reduction while at the same time having the world's second largest military budget.

 3. By the time the farmers are urbanized, China wont need all the energy it currently produces as they will be a post-industrialized country with a declining population that will need to be bolstered by immigration from.... probably Africa?
 

Industry nation with half the population living as subsistence farmers? Ok...

And chinas argument is sound. All the existing industry nations have been heavily polluting the world and destroying nature without thinking twice until the end/2nd half of the 20th century. That is why we have to give china the time and help to not go the same way as we did.

[Spendulus]

....chinas argument is sound. All the existing industry nations have been heavily polluting the world and destroying nature without thinking twice until the end/2nd half of the 20th century. That is why we have to give china the time and help to not go the same way as we did.

No, we don't.

China could have gotten their act together in the year 1800, or 1900. They didn't.

That was their choice, and the result was that they fell behind.

We don't OWE them anything.

[criptix]

....chinas argument is sound. All the existing industry nations have been heavily polluting the world and destroying nature without thinking twice until the end/2nd half of the 20th century. That is why we have to give china the time and help to not go the same way as we did.

China could have gotten their act together in the year 1800, or 1900. They didn't.

Please explain your theory with historical context for the people who lack the knowledge like me.

[squatz1]

Here's the big thing that I think about the Paris Climate Deal / Paris Climate Accords, all the Liberals are coming out and going insane over it but in reality it's not like this document held any legal binding in the least. SO this wasen't going to stop any country from violating the treaty, this was just some political play from the Dems to feel as if they were doing something in regard to Climate Change and helping the world, when in reality they're doing nothing alongside the Republicans and Trump.

So it is great, leaving some bullshit treaty is wonderful IMO.

[Spendulus]

....chinas argument is sound. All the existing industry nations have been heavily polluting the world and destroying nature without thinking twice until the end/2nd half of the 20th century. That is why we have to give china the time and help to not go the same way as we did.

China could have gotten their act together in the year 1800, or 1900. They didn't.

Please explain your theory with historical context for the people who lack the knowledge like me.

I'll try, but you are tough to convince. China has a long and possibly unique history. If you like, compare it with African tribal society or North American Indians in the year 1800.

Neither of the latter could ever have brought themselves rapidly to a technological level. But China was different, radically so. It had simply "looked inward," and rejected the Western world. That held until 1948, when the Mao "cultural revolution" started. But it remained both traditional China, and communist China.

Only when China itself started to open up to Western industrialization and methods, did the process of change really being. The first container shipped from China in 1995.

Thus, although you might argue the Western world owes sub Saharan Africa carbon credits, I don't buy that anyone owes China anything.

[Tyrantt]

Trump positioned in the world as primitive man. He was not interested in what will happen to the world, he is not even able to understand that a very large part of America is located in the coastal zone. Even his 58 story skyscraper on 5th Avenue will go under water. But all this pales before the possibility of saving several hundred million on the environment.

you have no idea what a Paris agreement actually is... If you want to bash someone or something, first read a little about it. US has been donating $3bil+ every years to China and India to improve the environment, etc.. the hippie stuff.. but that agreement doesn't force them to use that money for that cause and they can use it for whatever they want. You primitive man.

[Sithara007]

Trump positioned in the world as primitive man. He was not interested in what will happen to the world, he is not even able to understand that a very large part of America is located in the coastal zone. Even his 58 story skyscraper on 5th Avenue will go under water. But all this pales before the possibility of saving several hundred million on the environment.

you have no idea what a Paris agreement actually is... If you want to bash someone or something, first read a little about it. US has been donating $3bil+ every years to China and India to improve the environment, etc.. the hippie stuff.. but that agreement doesn't force them to use that money for that cause and they can use it for whatever they want. You primitive man.

China and India need to do a lot more to combat climate change. Why these two countries are still depending on coal-fired power plants to generate electricity, when cheaper options such as natural gas and Uranium are available? Apart from the global warming, thermal power-plants are causing hundreds of thousands of deaths every year, due to the pollution.

[The One]

The whole climate change is one giant scam.

So many reasons.

Two of my favorites.

If cc is true then population MUST come down.

If cc is true then no immigration from low co2 emission country per person to high co2 emission country per person. Many poor countries emission is 40 to 80g per person and when they come to the UK it goes up to 800g ish person. Scandinavia countries being colder has around 1200g ish person. Accepting immigrants there is madness. All immigrants should go back to poor countries unless we really need the person's skills.