Trumpt**** support the Presidents decision to leave the Paris agreement
-
If you want to say he's a flip-flopper,
example: his position on NATO changed from his campaign to now…
-
Time to celebrate!!! I :love: TRUMP!!! If you don't like it, too bad. I bet you didn't even watch his speech explaining the reasons why. He made a DAMN good speech. If you don't agree, then take some of his points and explain why they're wrong. Bet you can't. All you can say is, "congratulations for being wrong." Same old song and dance from the libtards. NO rationale. NO reason, just blind stupidity. Enough of this garbage about global warming. CO2 is what trees breath and we exhale. The evidence that this is damaging is absurd. The only ones who will benefit from this are the global bankers who through the IMF have concocted this carbon tax scheme to enrich themselves further and create their world bank dictatorship. If you don't like it, I don't give one little tiny crap, because you're wrong, and you don't know what you're talking about.
…. are you idiot?... CO2 is not what tree breath, tree breath oxygen - O2, his ability is through photosyntesis to create about 2x more oxygen, but he need half of it to survive, so tree doesnt breath CO2... Problem is not about this, problem is about global warming, humanity is cutting down more and more trees while producing more CO2 and trees cant acumulate it fast enough, (in some cases, forest can even MAKE more CO2 then acumulating - when they are dying, was bad year in term of weather, or it need to be alive ceartin length but humans cutted it too much early) I am from czech, 30% of our lands are trees, but they can only acumulate about 5% of emission of our country - they main problem why it is damaging is because CO2 was about 300 ppm - particle per milion, now it is 400 ppm, in 20-40 years it will be more, global temperature will raise about 2 C, - little? no, 1 C is for habitats fauna and flora either 100 km north, or 200-300 meters up, melting ice, increasing sea level, thats a lot, from my point of view - trump want people to recognize him, because if USA will leave - they can create mroe things with worse technology - more emission - but more profit - he make USA rich more for few years, he dont care what will be in 20y, because he will be dead
my main answer - Same old song and dance from the libtards/trumptards. NO rationale. NO reason, just blind stupidity. it is double-edged sword for you...
and please stop treating nature as something that is doing things for humans, stop treating it like it is their duty to acumulate CO2 from humans... it isnton other side - 3 big countries and a lot of big cities in USA are saying that they will still uphold this agreement, + Trump was saying that the temperature will increase only about 0,3 from study from MIT i think, writers of this study are saying he didnt understood their study and he took data from old study before USA agreed with Climate change, their newer study is 0,6 - 1,1 C
-
Once signed, the next step in the ratification process is to send the treaty to the US Senate
The Paris Agreement's authority derives from the [desc=United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change]UNFCCC[/desc] treaty which the Senate ratified 25 years ago.
Time to celebrate!!!
You're a little early to the party. The withdrawal from the Agreement doesn't take effect until November, 2020.
-
While there is massive scandals on the pro climate change side, it's clearly a real thing, even if it's being exaggerated.
Has anyone actually read the Paris agreement? Does it treat the US fairly? Is it reasonable? Will it work?
No treaty works unless all the participants adhere to the treaty.
Typically, everything the US gets involved in winds up with the US adhering to the treaties, and the other countries ignoring it.
You think China would ever adhere to a CO2 emissions treaty? Not a chance.I am dubious about what can be done about CO2 emissions anyway.. volcanoes and blown up oil wells such as in Iraq have put a tremendous amount of CO2 into the air.
I have another example.. several years ago, there were all sorts of restrictions on the use of chlorofluorocarbons.. CFCs.. however, the CFC's from industry eclipsed that of civilian use - so it seems that priorities are out of order.
In other words.. we need to get our priorities straight FIRST.. before imposing restrictions where they might not even be effective.
Another example of that.. water usage. The vast amount of water wasted is by agriculture. So, they should focus on agriculture FIRST.
-
News about this administration makes my blood boil on a daily basis. We are literally in the twighlight zone.
-
GHG emissions from volcanic sources make up less than 1% of emissions from human activities. Volcanoes generate about 200 million tons of CO2 annually, on the other hand 24 billion tons of CO2 is produced annually from anthropogenic sources.
So natural sources can't be blamed for climate change.
-
Let me get this straight. Scientists all over the world from every country are mostly in agreement that climate change is real.
Trumptards completely disregard all of that science because the guy who sells steaks at the mall tells them to. It's a world gone mad…...
News about this administration makes my blood boil on a daily basis. We are literally in the twighlight zone.
Yes, pod people like you are extremely scary.
What makes my blood boil is the fear mongering by the left and the blind knee jerk reactionary you, and others show in this thread.
-Trump wanted to re-negotiate the treaty. He thought that it wasn't fair for the U.S.
-Nope, non-negotiable.
-Okay, we're out.
-OMG YOU HATE THE ENVIRONMENT, ARE ANTI-SCIENCE AND LITERALLY BRINGING ABOUT THE "APOCOLYPSE" (also racist, because we can't waste an opportunity to call your racist).Here is CNN saying that Trump is bringing about the apocolypse:
Here is the ACLU calling Trump racist for not ratifying the treaty because reasons?
I wrote dozens of papers in college about saving the environment, conserving water and minimizing waste. I ride my bike everywhere, don't own a car by choice, and do everything I can to minimize my carbon footprint. And you? I guarantee you have a larger footprint than I do, and 99% chance you own a car. So don't even bother telling me that I'm anti-environment for supporting Trump and his decision.
When your leftwing media and institutions can't even discuss this in a rational manner without spilling their spaghetti everywhere, there's a problem, and it's not Trump. It's the pod people, who blindly believe anything the big glowing box dictates to you, not recognizing that hey, maybe there's so god damn nuance.
-
Once signed, the next step in the ratification process is to send the treaty to the US Senate
The Paris Agreement's authority derives from the [desc=United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change]UNFCCC[/desc] treaty which the Senate ratified 25 years ago.
Time to celebrate!!!
You're a little early to the party. The withdrawal from the Agreement doesn't take effect until November, 2020.
Just in time for the new administration to stop the withdrawal.
-
Pulling out of this agreement has further pissed off the Germans, who have invested over $1 billion in my state for the BMW plant here in South Carolina. He's also made other negative statements about countries that have invested in our country and have been providing jobs for people here. If the Germans decide to pull their support and their investments in our country because of this and other bad actions by our president, my state is going to lose those important investments. That plant employs a lot of people here and is a plus for this state's economy. The South Carolina Republican Party, as well as the Georgia Republican Party, are meeting with their members this weekend to determine whether or not to continue to support this president because he is driving Southern states who voted for him toward recessions in incoming years.
"America 1st?" More like America bankrupt just like his raggedy businesses.
-
We should reject this deal because it's not in our interests. Period. It does nothing to curb the two biggest polluters on Earth today: India & China. They've only agreed to cap how much more pollution they'll emit, but they continue increasing the amounts yearly under the agreement despite the fact China is so polluted you can't even see China from space.
Then, there's the wealth redistribution aspects to the agreement whereby first world nations agree to pay third world nations for climate change, which is not in any national interest. The truth about climate change is that the Earth is getting overpopulated. Europe and North America addresses that policy already. Look at the size of families in most first world countries. However, those issues aren't being addressed in the third world, nor are they part of any Paris Accord.
I'm for measures to tackle climate change, but I'm not going to endorse any deal that (a) not in our national interests and (b) fails to address the root of climate change.
-
He is just supporting Syria and Nicaragua.
-
We should reject this deal because it's not in our interests. Period. It does nothing to curb the two biggest polluters on Earth today: India & China. They've only agreed to cap how much more pollution they'll emit, but they continue increasing the amounts yearly under the agreement despite the fact China is so polluted you can't even see China from space.
You know, according to liberals, that makes you a racist.
Only whitey can do anything wrong.
-
We should reject this deal because it's not in our interests. Period. It does nothing to curb the two biggest polluters on Earth today: India & China. They've only agreed to cap how much more pollution they'll emit, but they continue increasing the amounts yearly under the agreement despite the fact China is so polluted you can't even see China from space.
Not true: China has signed to reduce by 60% till 2030 its emissions, 40% for europe and a mere 28% for US . Read the agreement first.
-
We should reject this deal because it's not in our interests. Period. It does nothing to curb the two biggest polluters on Earth today: India & China. They've only agreed to cap how much more pollution they'll emit, but they continue increasing the amounts yearly under the agreement despite the fact China is so polluted you can't even see China from space.
Not true: China has signed to reduce by 60% till 2030 its emissions, 40% for europe and a mere 28% for US . Read the agreement first.
I'm sure you are statement is accurate, but you are forgetting something.. There is no way that China would adhere to that agreement. They don't follow the rules, they never have, and they never will. Being a communist country, their government controls everything including the media 100%. At the moment, they are behaving themselves. It's in their best interest to behave themselves because countries like the USA are their customers. However, they do whatever the hell they want to in their own country, and there is virtually nobody there that is going to contradict them. Their government could say tomorrow that they have cut emissions 99%.. and who is going to say otherwise?
By the way, the USA already does have a lot of emission control laws in place. Countries like China have virtually none. So cutting our emissions even further is a lot tougher than them doing anything at all.
Also.. other countries utilize nuclear power plants far more than we do. Nuclear power is a great way to reduce CO2 emissions, but has the danger of nuclear contamination.
-
GHG emissions from volcanic sources make up less than 1% of emissions from human activities. Volcanoes generate about 200 million tons of CO2 annually, on the other hand 24 billion tons of CO2 is produced annually from anthropogenic sources.
So natural sources can't be blamed for climate change.
I checked.. and you are CORRECT about the CO2 emissions!
Thanks for sharing that.
I blame the History Channel for having shows suggesting that the planet is doomed by volcanoes, calderas, earthquakes, etc.As for climate change. It is still unclear what is causing that, and if the changes are negative or positive.
Where I live, the winters used to get bitterly cold for a time.. and no longer do. The summers used to get blistering hot.. but no longer do. There used to be severe hurricanes and tropical storms frequently.. and there no longer are. There used to be months when it would be pissing rain every day, and that doesn't happen anymore.I'd say that something more important than worrying about climate change is how the oceans are being polluted. That is being ignored.
-
Once signed, the next step in the ratification process is to send the treaty to the US Senate
The Paris Agreement's authority derives from the [desc=United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change]UNFCCC[/desc] treaty which the Senate ratified 25 years ago.
Time to celebrate!!!
You're a little early to the party. The withdrawal from the Agreement doesn't take effect until November, 2020.
Although you are technically correct, there is something that must be pointed out. When it comes to making contributions in FUNDING things such as the Paris Agreement, and NATO.. the overwhelming contributor is the USA. If the USA pulls out, it's dunzo. Other countries don't honor the agreements they make anyway.
-
Fred is right. The Paris agreement is dead now.
-
Fred is right. The Paris agreement is dead now.
I don't know if we should or shouldn't be happy about that..
