June 2, 20179 yr I'll be the first to admit I know next to nothing about this, but can someone explain why I should be concerned, or why it's being seen as such a big deal? From the little I was able to gather about it, it seems like there was nothing binding members to actually honor the agreement they were a part of. Also read that developed countries were contributing $100B a year for this? Am I the only one that thinks that sounds like a ton of $$?
June 2, 20179 yr From what I understand it's more of the image that Trump (and as a result the United States) is not willing to play ball with other countries in finding a solution. This climate accord wasn't so much a solution itself, rather a starting point in coming up with something. Climate change is undoubtedly a very real concern the world is facing. What is up for debate is what can realistically be done to help, and most even on the left agree that this accord itself was not going to make any significant impact but it was at the very least a starting point.
June 2, 20179 yr I'll be the first to admit I know next to nothing about this, but can someone explain why I should be concerned, or why it's being seen as such a big deal? From the little I was able to gather about it, it seems like there was nothing binding members to actually honor the agreement they were a part of. Also read that developed countries were contributing $100B a year for this? Am I the only one that thinks that sounds like a ton of $$? Yeah, 100B a year is crazy. I have no idea whether withdrawing is the right or wrong move, however, I would imagine that most of the outrage is two fold. Internationally it likely has to do with the fact that the US is being counted on to foot most of the bill. Domestically, I'd guess like everything else, some people will be outraged by anything that Trump does / doesn't do. He cannot make a correct decision at this point on anything.
June 2, 20179 yr I'll admit I don't know a Paris Accord from a Honda Accord and I have the distinct feeling most people I see up in arms over this. don't either. The US has made great strides over the last 30 or so years and will continue to do so with or without this or any other accord being signed.
June 2, 20179 yr My understanding was that the $100 billion number comes from collective commitments for green investment from all the developed-country signatories together, not each individually and that the actual investment is not anywhere near that point right now. Which isn't surprising since the accord had no binding language or enforcement mechanisms. Edited June 2, 20179 yr by Getslow
June 2, 20179 yr I think anyone that denies climate change is a real issue facing our world needs to reexamine some basic evidence and think it through. With that said, we can't keep putting America at such financial disadvantage, pay more than our share to NATO while other countries don't pay their share, and be expected to Police the World (someone has to Police the World) all on our dime.
June 2, 20179 yr I don't think anyone understands what the accord is about, but the optics of being part of a group that only includes the great countries of Nicaragua and Syria is bad. To me the accord seems as more of a symbolic pledge.
June 2, 20179 yr I don't think anyone understands what the accord is about, but the optics of being part of a group that only includes the great countries of Nicaragua and Syria is bad. To me the accord seems as more of a symbolic pledge. Funny thing about that is that Syria was already mired in conflict and Assad essentially a global pariah during the Paris talks and Nicaragua refused to be party to the agreement because they thought the lack of an enforcement mechanism made the agreement too weak. It's interesting. Couldn't be three more different reasons for not being party to the accord.
June 2, 20179 yr A Facebook friend of mine whose political opinions I consider reliable mentioned it c/would save EKy's coal jobs. Can anyone expand on that?
June 2, 20179 yr A Facebook friend of mine whose political opinions I consider reliable mentioned it c/would save EKy's coal jobs. Can anyone expand on that? Coal is dead and Obama didn't kill coal. New sources of energy such as natural gas, solar and wind power are increasingly taking over the energy market and adding more and more jobs as we speak. With all corporations focusing on clean energy the need for coal becomes less and less each day. Coal is dead. The sooner people realize it the better. Gary Cohn is one of Trump's right hand men desperately trying to get Trump to leave coal alone and move on to helping out the clean energy industry.
June 2, 20179 yr I don't think anyone understands what the accord is about, but the optics of being part of a group that only includes the great countries of Nicaragua and Syria is bad. To me the accord seems as more of a symbolic pledge. He backed out of it because it does more to ruin Obama's legacy. Nothing more nothing less.
June 2, 20179 yr The accord said by 2025 we had to cut Fossil Fuel production by around 30%. Think of the jobs that cost. Think of your energy bill going up. Secondly the agreement labeled China and India as devolping nations, so they did not have to meet standards that we had to. This agreement was a joke it cost us jobs, money and the ability to compete on the global market with the 2nd largest economy in China. Those on twitter acting like this is the end of the world really do not care about middle class jobs or their ability to pay bills.
June 2, 20179 yr I just heard on a podcast that it takes a year for the request to leave the Paris Accord to be honored and another 3 years for it to kick in so the US won't be out of the Paris Accord until November 2020. If a new administration wins the election in 2020 then they can get back into the Accord with little lost in the process. Can anyone dispute that information that I just heard? If not then Trump has pulled the wool over everyone's eyes once again. :lol2: :lol2:
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.