Total Posts:14|Showing Posts:1-14
Jump to topic:

US to withdraw from Paris Accord

Swagnarok
Posts: 2,020
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/1/2017 7:01:04 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
President Trump announced Thursday that the United States will be withdrawing from the Paris Accord, an international agreement to curb greenhouse gas emissions in a bid to slow and mitigate the effects of anthropogenic climate change. The agreement was seen as one of the landmark achievements of President Obama, but now it remains to be seen whether the pact will survive without participation of the US, which is one of the world's largest greenhouse gas emitters.
Rest in Peace DDO (2007-2018)
YYW
Posts: 44,679
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/1/2017 7:17:37 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
The reason that Trump has to withdraw is because the short term impact of complying with the Paris Accord's terms will be that a lot of coal country jobs will be lost. Not a little... a lot. Even though jobs will be lost, though, they're only really going to be lost in Pennsylvania and West Virginia, and other coal producing states.

The reason the Democrats want the deal is because if we don't stay in, then other countries (namely China) are going to consolidate a hold on the market for green energy production, which will translate into a much broader long-term harm. The research and development towards green energy production will create jobs, but the jobs that it will create will be in states like California, New York and Washington State.

The additional reason that the democrats want the Paris Climate deal is because it will reduce dependence on foreign oil. Republicans don't want this because a lot of their money comes from the sale of foreign oil to Americans. So, the political interests here are pretty much mutually exclusive, but the GOP position while it will help them in the short term, is going to continue to create problems for them long term.

The other reason that Trump, personally, has to pull out of this deal is because of what he said on the campaign trail. He said he would withdraw... he said it was a bad deal, so that's just the end of it. He realizes that each and every one of the other promises he made (Mexican wall which Mexico will pay for; renegotiated trade deals; etc.) will never happen, but this he can make happen.

In terms of the historical perspective, this is going to be remembered as one of the worst decisions any president has ever made. Not only is Trump giving a gift to the Chinese to consolidate the green energy market, but he is doing it in a way that is going to cost the United States the ability to lead in the sole most important economic sector on earth: energy.

What is not influencing this is concerns of "sovereignty" or whatever other idiocy that the Republicans are saying, to the extent that it's inconsistent with what i've said here.
Swagnarok
Posts: 2,020
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/1/2017 7:34:42 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/1/2017 7:17:37 PM, YYW wrote:
The reason that Trump has to withdraw is because the short term impact of complying with the Paris Accord's terms will be that a lot of coal country jobs will be lost. Not a little... a lot. Even though jobs will be lost, though, they're only really going to be lost in Pennsylvania and West Virginia, and other coal producing states.

The reason the Democrats want the deal is because if we don't stay in, then other countries (namely China) are going to consolidate a hold on the market for green energy production, which will translate into a much broader long-term harm. The research and development towards green energy production will create jobs, but the jobs that it will create will be in states like California, New York and Washington State.

The additional reason that the democrats want the Paris Climate deal is because it will reduce dependence on foreign oil. Republicans don't want this because a lot of their money comes from the sale of foreign oil to Americans. So, the political interests here are pretty much mutually exclusive, but the GOP position while it will help them in the short term, is going to continue to create problems for them long term.

The other reason that Trump, personally, has to pull out of this deal is because of what he said on the campaign trail. He said he would withdraw... he said it was a bad deal, so that's just the end of it. He realizes that each and every one of the other promises he made (Mexican wall which Mexico will pay for; renegotiated trade deals; etc.) will never happen, but this he can make happen.

In terms of the historical perspective, this is going to be remembered as one of the worst decisions any president has ever made. Not only is Trump giving a gift to the Chinese to consolidate the green energy market, but he is doing it in a way that is going to cost the United States the ability to lead in the sole most important economic sector on earth: energy.

What is not influencing this is concerns of "sovereignty" or whatever other idiocy that the Republicans are saying, to the extent that it's inconsistent with what i've said here.

What I've heard is that, even if we remained part of the agreement and so did the rest of the world, it would've done relatively little to abate climate change even though participation would likely cost us trillions in the long run.
Rest in Peace DDO (2007-2018)
Greyparrot
Posts: 21,953
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/1/2017 7:49:11 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
We need to lose money through unenforceable carbon pledges and global taxes to help poor nations...so we can make money on green energy... yay!

I'm pretty sure China doesn't give a care what paper the USA signs, if they want to do something, they are going to do it. China's participation in and USA's withdrawal from an unenforceable agreement won't suddenly permit China to be a green energy giant. If China wants to do it, they are going to do it regardless. They don't need permission.

Didnt China effectively destroy Solyndra? Obama's pet green energy project? Oh yeah...if only Obama was more forceful with his ratification of the Paris accords....
The extinction of the species is worse than the extinction of the nation, which is worse than the extinction of the tribe, which is worse than the extinction of the family, which is worse than the extinction of the individual. The second he reverses that list of priorities, he becomes a coward, and would be summarily disposed of by any civilized society that values its own survival.
Swagnarok
Posts: 2,020
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/2/2017 2:53:10 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
It should be noted that the agreement would have had an estimated annual cost of about 484 billion dollars a year for 25 years per one source. It did not specify whether this was the total cost or if this was how much the US would've been expected to cough up, but I think it's fair to say that even if it's the former, we probably would've shouldered a good 1/3rds to 2/5ths of this, or like 160 to 190 billion a year. Even if just 25%, that'd amount to around $120 billion per year.
Of course, one could very easily argue that it's worth the money, but still...
Rest in Peace DDO (2007-2018)
slo1
Posts: 5,200
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/2/2017 12:32:41 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/1/2017 7:49:11 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
We need to lose money through unenforceable carbon pledges and global taxes to help poor nations...so we can make money on green energy... yay!

I'm pretty sure China doesn't give a care what paper the USA signs, if they want to do something, they are going to do it. China's participation in and USA's withdrawal from an unenforceable agreement won't suddenly permit China to be a green energy giant. If China wants to do it, they are going to do it regardless. They don't need permission.

Didnt China effectively destroy Solyndra? Obama's pet green energy project? Oh yeah...if only Obama was more forceful with his ratification of the Paris accords....

You have fallen to far right conspiracy. If you researched Solyndra you would know the gov funding given to it was part of a larger program that funded energy startups just like a venture capital company does. That program has done quite well financially dispite some companies going under, which is to be expected in high risk high reward venture capital.

You can argue whether it is the role of government should be to provide venture capital to new emerging tech companies, but basing any arguement on Solyndra alone is like arguing Louisiana has the best looking woman because of one you saw there.
slo1
Posts: 5,200
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/2/2017 12:38:39 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/2/2017 2:53:10 AM, Swagnarok wrote:
It should be noted that the agreement would have had an estimated annual cost of about 484 billion dollars a year for 25 years per one source. It did not specify whether this was the total cost or if this was how much the US would've been expected to cough up, but I think it's fair to say that even if it's the former, we probably would've shouldered a good 1/3rds to 2/5ths of this, or like 160 to 190 billion a year. Even if just 25%, that'd amount to around $120 billion per year.
Of course, one could very easily argue that it's worth the money, but still...

You can't just argue costs of reducing greenhouse gases. It is like arguing that the costs of picking up and moving all the trash to a dump costs billions of dollars a year therefore we should stop it.

You have to include risk and costs of not picking up the trash before determining whether the cost is worth it.

It would be very refreshing if the gov at least understood the risk and associated costs to it's citizens should various risks materialize before making decisions. It is obvious Trump and team are climate change deniers who have largely determined there is no risk to our society. God will help us if we remain pure.
Greyparrot
Posts: 21,953
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/2/2017 4:39:32 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/2/2017 12:32:41 PM, slo1 wrote:
At 6/1/2017 7:49:11 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
We need to lose money through unenforceable carbon pledges and global taxes to help poor nations...so we can make money on green energy... yay!

I'm pretty sure China doesn't give a care what paper the USA signs, if they want to do something, they are going to do it. China's participation in and USA's withdrawal from an unenforceable agreement won't suddenly permit China to be a green energy giant. If China wants to do it, they are going to do it regardless. They don't need permission.

Didnt China effectively destroy Solyndra? Obama's pet green energy project? Oh yeah...if only Obama was more forceful with his ratification of the Paris accords....

You have fallen to far right conspiracy. If you researched Solyndra you would know the gov funding given to it was part of a larger program that funded energy startups just like a venture capital company does. That program has done quite well financially dispite some companies going under, which is to be expected in high risk high reward venture capital.

You can argue whether it is the role of government should be to provide venture capital to new emerging tech companies, but basing any arguement on Solyndra alone is like arguing Louisiana has the best looking woman because of one you saw there.

Solyndra, the bankrupt Silicon Valley solar startup that received a $535 million federal loan guarantee, has filed a $1.5 billion antitrust suit against China"s three biggest photovoltaic panel manufacturers.

The lawsuit filed Thursday in U.S. District Court in San Francisco alleges a wide-ranging conspiracy among Suntech, Trina, Yingli, their suppliers, banks and the Chinese government to destroy Solyndra and the U.S. solar industry by flooding the market with cheap photovoltaic panels.

"Recognizing that they could not keep pace with the innovation presented by Solyndra's technology, defendants entered into a conspiracy with each other and, pursuant to national and local policies directing commercial growth and dominance in the United States market, with key suppliers and lenders to dump product at predatory levels, and to drive Solyndra and other American solar manufacturers out of business," states the lawsuit that reads like a cloak-and-dagger thriller.

Solyndra even alleges that one of its German customers, GeckoLogic, conspired with Yingli to undermine the startup by scuttling a $105 million deal.

"As part of a Solyndra beta system, GeckoLogic installed Solyndra panels on a rooftop in Germany and a webcam was setup to monitor the performance of the Solyndra panels," the suit states. "At some point after installation of the panels and webcam, the webcam stopped transmitting data back to Solyndra. Solyndra later learned that Yingli had interfered with Solyndra's agreement and installed its panels on GeckoLogic's roof " all of which was kept secret from Solyndra."

https://www.forbes.com...

So much for keeping China from being the Green Energy leader.... Obama should have pressed his pen a lot harder on the Paris accords,
The extinction of the species is worse than the extinction of the nation, which is worse than the extinction of the tribe, which is worse than the extinction of the family, which is worse than the extinction of the individual. The second he reverses that list of priorities, he becomes a coward, and would be summarily disposed of by any civilized society that values its own survival.
Greyparrot
Posts: 21,953
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/2/2017 4:43:58 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/2/2017 12:32:41 PM, slo1 wrote:
At 6/1/2017 7:49:11 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
We need to lose money through unenforceable carbon pledges and global taxes to help poor nations...so we can make money on green energy... yay!

I'm pretty sure China doesn't give a care what paper the USA signs, if they want to do something, they are going to do it. China's participation in and USA's withdrawal from an unenforceable agreement won't suddenly permit China to be a green energy giant. If China wants to do it, they are going to do it regardless. They don't need permission.

Didnt China effectively destroy Solyndra? Obama's pet green energy project? Oh yeah...if only Obama was more forceful with his ratification of the Paris accords....

You have fallen to far right conspiracy. If you researched Solyndra you would know the gov funding given to it was part of a larger program that funded energy startups just like a venture capital company does. That program has done quite well financially dispite some companies going under, which is to be expected in high risk high reward venture capital.

You can argue whether it is the role of government should be to provide venture capital to new emerging tech companies, but basing any arguement on Solyndra alone is like arguing Louisiana has the best looking woman because of one you saw there.

Good, then you realize the argument that the BEST way to become the "GREEN ENERGY LEADER" is through the Paris accords is total bunk.
The extinction of the species is worse than the extinction of the nation, which is worse than the extinction of the tribe, which is worse than the extinction of the family, which is worse than the extinction of the individual. The second he reverses that list of priorities, he becomes a coward, and would be summarily disposed of by any civilized society that values its own survival.
Quadrunner
Posts: 5,509
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/2/2017 5:13:54 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/2/2017 12:38:39 PM, slo1 wrote:
At 6/2/2017 2:53:10 AM, Swagnarok wrote:
It should be noted that the agreement would have had an estimated annual cost of about 484 billion dollars a year for 25 years per one source. It did not specify whether this was the total cost or if this was how much the US would've been expected to cough up, but I think it's fair to say that even if it's the former, we probably would've shouldered a good 1/3rds to 2/5ths of this, or like 160 to 190 billion a year. Even if just 25%, that'd amount to around $120 billion per year.
Of course, one could very easily argue that it's worth the money, but still...

You can't just argue costs of reducing greenhouse gases. It is like arguing that the costs of picking up and moving all the trash to a dump costs billions of dollars a year therefore we should stop it.

You have to include risk and costs of not picking up the trash before determining whether the cost is worth it.

It would be very refreshing if the gov at least understood the risk and associated costs to it's citizens should various risks materialize before making decisions.

This is all I ever really wanted from the government. I think Trump is at least more straight up than administration's of the recent past in the sense of how obvious he makes things. There is no veil of righteousness in this decision I have to sift through. I dont have to question why companies are lobbying for something that is supposed to be controlling them. I dont have to think about his politics or whatever shmear. I don't have to contend that he's actually a climate change deniar.

It's just not a good deal.
Greyparrot
Posts: 21,953
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/2/2017 5:29:46 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/2/2017 5:13:54 PM, Quadrunner wrote:
At 6/2/2017 12:38:39 PM, slo1 wrote:
At 6/2/2017 2:53:10 AM, Swagnarok wrote:
It should be noted that the agreement would have had an estimated annual cost of about 484 billion dollars a year for 25 years per one source. It did not specify whether this was the total cost or if this was how much the US would've been expected to cough up, but I think it's fair to say that even if it's the former, we probably would've shouldered a good 1/3rds to 2/5ths of this, or like 160 to 190 billion a year. Even if just 25%, that'd amount to around $120 billion per year.
Of course, one could very easily argue that it's worth the money, but still...

You can't just argue costs of reducing greenhouse gases. It is like arguing that the costs of picking up and moving all the trash to a dump costs billions of dollars a year therefore we should stop it.

You have to include risk and costs of not picking up the trash before determining whether the cost is worth it.

It would be very refreshing if the gov at least understood the risk and associated costs to it's citizens should various risks materialize before making decisions.

This is all I ever really wanted from the government. I think Trump is at least more straight up than administration's of the recent past in the sense of how obvious he makes things. There is no veil of righteousness in this decision I have to sift through. I dont have to question why companies are lobbying for something that is supposed to be controlling them. I dont have to think about his politics or whatever shmear. I don't have to contend that he's actually a climate change deniar.

It's just not a good deal.

A real politician would stay in it for the virtue signalling, knowing full well they don't have to abide by a non-binding agreement. All of the other nations politicians are doing it. Too bad our president is not a politician that can't feel comfortable living a lie. Only Nicaragua had the balls to stand up for truth, other than Trump.
The extinction of the species is worse than the extinction of the nation, which is worse than the extinction of the tribe, which is worse than the extinction of the family, which is worse than the extinction of the individual. The second he reverses that list of priorities, he becomes a coward, and would be summarily disposed of by any civilized society that values its own survival.
slo1
Posts: 5,200
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/3/2017 4:25:35 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/2/2017 4:43:58 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 6/2/2017 12:32:41 PM, slo1 wrote:
At 6/1/2017 7:49:11 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
We need to lose money through unenforceable carbon pledges and global taxes to help poor nations...so we can make money on green energy... yay!

I'm pretty sure China doesn't give a care what paper the USA signs, if they want to do something, they are going to do it. China's participation in and USA's withdrawal from an unenforceable agreement won't suddenly permit China to be a green energy giant. If China wants to do it, they are going to do it regardless. They don't need permission.

Didnt China effectively destroy Solyndra? Obama's pet green energy project? Oh yeah...if only Obama was more forceful with his ratification of the Paris accords....

You have fallen to far right conspiracy. If you researched Solyndra you would know the gov funding given to it was part of a larger program that funded energy startups just like a venture capital company does. That program has done quite well financially dispite some companies going under, which is to be expected in high risk high reward venture capital.

You can argue whether it is the role of government should be to provide venture capital to new emerging tech companies, but basing any arguement on Solyndra alone is like arguing Louisiana has the best looking woman because of one you saw there.

Good, then you realize the argument that the BEST way to become the "GREEN ENERGY LEADER" is through the Paris accords is total bunk.

Depends whether the gov continues programs that promotes investment in development to get the technology to a price point where natural markets can take over. Artificially making carbon based fuels is one way to help accomplish the industry turn over into clean energy.

There are other ways such as providing investment capital as we already wrote. I'll believe this admin when they come up with their programs that continues to aid the transition to clean energy, but I'm not holding my breath. In fact, he has proposed huge cuts to department of energy that supports many pro clean energy projects.

The good news is that solar and other are getting to a point of efficiency where they can be competitive.
slo1
Posts: 5,200
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/3/2017 4:29:15 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/3/2017 4:25:35 AM, slo1 wrote:
At 6/2/2017 4:43:58 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 6/2/2017 12:32:41 PM, slo1 wrote:
At 6/1/2017 7:49:11 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
We need to lose money through unenforceable carbon pledges and global taxes to help poor nations...so we can make money on green energy... yay!

I'm pretty sure China doesn't give a care what paper the USA signs, if they want to do something, they are going to do it. China's participation in and USA's withdrawal from an unenforceable agreement won't suddenly permit China to be a green energy giant. If China wants to do it, they are going to do it regardless. They don't need permission.

Didnt China effectively destroy Solyndra? Obama's pet green energy project? Oh yeah...if only Obama was more forceful with his ratification of the Paris accords....

You have fallen to far right conspiracy. If you researched Solyndra you would know the gov funding given to it was part of a larger program that funded energy startups just like a venture capital company does. That program has done quite well financially dispite some companies going under, which is to be expected in high risk high reward venture capital.

You can argue whether it is the role of government should be to provide venture capital to new emerging tech companies, but basing any arguement on Solyndra alone is like arguing Louisiana has the best looking woman because of one you saw there.

Good, then you realize the argument that the BEST way to become the "GREEN ENERGY LEADER" is through the Paris accords is total bunk.

Depends whether the gov continues programs that promotes investment in development to get the technology to a price point where natural markets can take over. Artificially making carbon based fuels more expensive is one way to help accomplish the industry turn over into clean energy.

There are other ways such as providing investment capital as we already wrote. I'll believe this admin when they come up with their programs that continues to aid the transition to clean energy, but I'm not holding my breath. In fact, he has proposed huge cuts to department of energy that supports many pro clean energy projects.

The good news is that solar and other are getting to a point of efficiency where they can be competitive.
Greyparrot
Posts: 21,953
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/3/2017 4:29:30 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/3/2017 4:25:35 AM, slo1 wrote:

Good, then you realize the argument that the BEST way to become the "GREEN ENERGY LEADER" is through the Paris accords is total bunk.

Depends whether the gov continues programs that promotes investment in development to get the technology to a price point where natural markets can take over. Artificially making carbon based fuels is one way to help accomplish the industry turn over into clean energy.

There are other ways such as providing investment capital as we already wrote. I'll believe this admin when they come up with their programs that continues to aid the transition to clean energy, but I'm not holding my breath. In fact, he has proposed huge cuts to department of energy that supports many pro clean energy projects.

The good news is that solar and other are getting to a point of efficiency where they can be competitive.

For the 1st time ever.... I don't disagree with what you just wrote...
The extinction of the species is worse than the extinction of the nation, which is worse than the extinction of the tribe, which is worse than the extinction of the family, which is worse than the extinction of the individual. The second he reverses that list of priorities, he becomes a coward, and would be summarily disposed of by any civilized society that values its own survival.

By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use.