President Trump Pulls U.S. Out of the Paris Climate Accord

[adurso]

heh.. That's the real trick isn't it. Since manufacture and import are prohibited, unless you can find an old 20mm machine cannon, good luck. Here's a real world example. I want an AA-12. Currently manufactured. Even if I paid the $200 tax and got the sheriff's approval (it's also required and he is not required to grant said approval) how would I buy one? I can't because they didn't exist before the NFA and they can't be made or imported for civilian use. What if I wanted and had the money for an F-16 fighter or modern tank? Same situation, I couldn't get it.

I don't really want those things (except the AA-12, that would be fun!) but the current laws are not really compatible with the US constitution. The laws surrounding arms in the US have become perverted over the years and made a big mess.

That has nothing to do with the Paris climate agreement except to highlight that the two situations are alike in one way. They are both incompatible with current laws.

Get an SOT class 7.

Get anything you want.

 

[NAM001]

sadly my degrees in political science and history are actually becoming useful.

The PCA is a start. More needed to be done. The US could have stayed in and become a leader. Instead we'll let China and India take the lead. Those new solar panels and wind turbines that will power Europe and Asia will be built in China. And the US will buy them too. So much for America First.

The economics that drove the argument to drop from PCA don't hold any water. They are fictional arguments that do not present a basic understanding of economics. Lets just look at the US coal and steel industry. Those jobs that are lost there are gone due to technology and automation. Most of the heads of those industries leaders have stated that those jobs are gone. We had an opportunity within PCA to train technicians for new energy and a global demand. Dropping PCA will guarantee that other nations buy from PCA participants thereby costing the US even more jobs.

And lastly, Neal Tyson DeGrasse, Elon Musk, Bill Gates and the Pope to name a few urged Mr Trump to stay with the PCA. I am not so arrogant to pretend that I'm smarter than those gentlemen. But evidently Mr Trump thinks he is.

Now for those that want to flame me as some kind of un-American liberal, let me just put that fire out. I'm opposed to Mr Trump on many fronts but I am a Republican voter and was a strong supporter of Jeb Bush.

YOU WOULD HAVE A POINT IF THE MAJOR COUNTRIES WERE PAYING INTO THE SYSTEM. THEY ARE NOT AND WILL NOT TILL 2020.

OOPs for the caps.... we are paying for us and other nations. the critisism belongs directed to other nations. Lets see,,,,, we borrow 1t from china and then we fund the PCA with some of the funds because china is not paying their share till 2020. Now to pay the loan back,,,,,, will we deduct the portion we paid for china till they start paying their way????? NO. It reeks with you have to join the Paris to see what it will cost you. Where have we heard that logic before.


Who would you want to do your investing for you bummer or trumpper

 

[NAM001]

Ah. There's my mistake. I forgot that some of you USians have a religious attitude towards your constitution, so I tried to engage in a rational, principled discussion.

My bad.

We Usians have those constitutional principles to be a measureind deviece to insure we dont become like non USians.

 

[NAM001]

He's not allowed to. He has to take the entire amount but can then donate it which he has.

And he did just that a while back the 1st quarter worth of 75K and donated it. Kennedy did the same thing supposedly. Without pay , one could make the case there is no accountability.

 

[Storker]

You were addressing an American regarding the Constitution.

Check the thread title. The thread - and my argument - was about the Cheeto-in-chief pulling you out of the Paris agreement, not about your precious 2nd Amendment. In fact, it isn't about your precious constitution at all. You see, even if this looks like yet another Pub thread, it's not located in the Pub. So there's a limit as to how far you should pull it off topic.

Happy to be of service.

 

[Caveeagle]

Two small words: 1st Amendment.

And what about those of us who dedicate their careers to trying to make a difference? Are at least they allowed to have an opinion?

If I am not mistaken, you were certainly willing to take the conversation into the 'Constitutional" realm when it fit the point you wanted to make..

 

[Storker]

If I am not mistaken, you were certainly willing to take the conversation into the 'Constitutional" realm when it fit the point you wanted to make..

You're mistaken. I'm a Euro, I could hardly care less about your precious constitution. The issue was about the balance between ceding "rights" and upholding a functioning (in this case international) society, not about a specific country's constitution. DO try to look beyond your little part of the world. For once. I know it's hard, but you can do it if you try.

 

[adurso]

Check the thread title. The thread - and my argument - was about the Cheeto-in-chief pulling you out of the Paris agreement, not about your precious 2nd Amendment. In fact, it isn't about your precious constitution at all. You see, even if this looks like yet another Pub thread, it's not located in the Pub. So there's a limit as to how far you should pull it off topic.

Happy to be of service.

Storker said: ↑
I most certainly am. Unlimited individual rights are incompatible with a civilized society. Your "right" to take whatever you want, to beat up someone who has insulted you, to refrain from funding schools for other people's children, to kill someone who has done you wrong or to buy a 20mm machine cannon just because you want one are already taken away from you.

Are you a-ok with a factory upstream from you dumping their crap directly in the river you swim and fish in, or do you think they should be subject to regulations that keep the river reasonably clean? If the latter, you, too, are in favor of governmentally imposed regulations and restrictions.

A civilized society must always balance individual interests against common interests.
Click to expand...

Happy to be of service...

Leaving that aside, perhaps you can answer the question I keep asking: specifically, citing the accord, what is the negative effect?

 

[Caveeagle]

Two small words: 1st Amendment.

^^ Hmm.. This is @Storker making reference to the 1st Amendment. Since most of us don't know what country is Storker's home, maybe we should assume a reference to the USA's Constitutional 1st Amendment?

**After al,l this is a thread topic on a US policy, right?

Check the thread title. The thread - and my argument - was about the Cheeto-in-chief pulling you out of the Paris agreement, not about your precious 2nd Amendment. In fact, it isn't about your precious constitution at all. You see, even if this looks like yet another Pub thread, it's not located in the Pub. So there's a limit as to how far you should pull it off topic.

^^And here is @Storker again complaining that somebody else referred to the 2nd amendment and declaring it to be off topic.

Got to love the grade school name calling "Cheeto-in-chief". And the condescending tone regarding our countries Constitution. I know we are far from perfect, but this contempt and disrespect makes me wonder why even bother dipping into a thread on US policy. Maybe fix your own house first before tossing stones our way dude!

Just out of curiosity, what country is Storker from? Just wondering, because surely they must be a model of environmental, humanitarian and economic harmony.

 

[Jared0425]

Leaving that aside, perhaps you can answer the question I keep asking: specifically, citing the accord, what is the negative effect?

This has been explained numerous times but once more apparently. The biggest problem that should piss you off the most is that cited in the agreement (China and India specifically) are allowed to build an unlimited amount of coal fired plants with no time limit.

As I mentioned before, the largest polluters will only continue to pollute and not cut their emissions for at least another 13 years. This information is publicly available if you want to refute my claim.

The world expected the US to make many payments in the coming years to the Green Climate Fund. An amount that would be close to a $100 billion, by far the largest contributor to the fund using government funds AKA tax dollars. This does not include private businesses and corporations who would add another few billion. This amount would be triple what the rest of the world would contribute to the fund.

@Storker, the people of the US has shouldered the burden of the world for the last 75 years. We have sacrificed millions of our troops in EVERY theater in the world for your own freedoms in Europe . Don't you lecture us on not being focused on the rest of the world as we are the ones who protect. Maybe Europe should deal with its terrorists and new founded Russian Empire on its own.

@adurso, now name me the benefits to us if we stayed in the agreement... That's non enforceable