• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Trump exiting Paris accord will harm US economy – LSE research

Exiting the Paris Accord will hurt the US economy.

"Withdrawing from the Paris agreement does not make economic sense for the US, a group of economists has argued, as the cost of clean energy has fallen since the agreement was signed in 2015, while the risks of climate catastrophe have increased.

Economists from the Grantham Institute for Climate Change at the London School of Economics examined the economic case for the US withdrawal, which President Donald Trump signalled in June 2017, and which will take effect on 4 November, the day after this year’s presidential election.

They found that climate breakdown would cause growing losses to US infrastructure and property, and impede the rate of economic growth this century, and that an increasing proportion of the carbon emissions causing global heating would come from countries outside the US. That gives the US a vested interest in whether the Paris agreement succeeds or fails, regardless of whether the US fulfils its own voluntary obligations under the accord."


Trump exiting Paris accord will harm US economy – LSE research | Environment | The Guardian

That renewables are starting to out compete fossil fuels all across the world leading to great economic opportunities.

Plunging Renewable Energy Prices Mean U.S. Can Hit 90% Clean Electricity By 2035 - At No Extra Cost

Why Energy Storage Is Proving Even More Disruptive Than Cheap Renewables

There also just the health benefits from reduction in air pollution alone outweigh the cost of the Paris Accord.

Health benefits far outweigh the costs of meeting climate change goals

We can have clean energy without needng to hand over billions to third world countries.
 
We can have clean energy without needng to hand over billions to third world countries.

The three billion dollars US would have contribute the Green Climate Fund can be compared to billions of dollars a years Trump wants to spend on propping up failing coal plants. Also that other countries contribute to a lot more to fund the fund per capita than the US.


Also US spends around 700 billion a years on their military so it makes a lot of financial sense to reduce the need for foreign intervention by helping development countries mitigate the divesting effects of climate change. Especially since the money spent on that is so tiny compared to US military spending and climate change leading to such severe risks to national and global security.

"Washington, DC, February 24, 2020 — In a comprehensive report released by the “National Security, Military and Intelligence Panel (NSMIP)” of the Center for Climate and Security, experts warn of High-to-Catastrophic threats to security from plausible climate change trajectories – the avoidance of which will require “quickly reducing and phasing out global greenhouse gas emissions.”

The panel, made up of national security, military and intelligence experts, analyzed the globe through the lens of the U.S. Geographic Combatant Commands, and concluded that:

“Even at scenarios of low warming, each region of the world will face severe risks to national and global security in the next three decades. Higher levels of warming will pose catastrophic, and likely irreversible, global security risks over the course of the 21st century.”"


 
Barrett Trump's pick for the supreme court made the ridiculous statement that acknowledging manmade climate change as a matter of policy, not science.


There that statement become even more ridiculous considering that federal agencies under the scrutiny and control of Republican climate deniers continue to acknowledge the urgent need for action because the evidences are so overwhelming.

 
The three billion dollars US would have contribute the Green Climate Fund can be compared to billions of dollars a years Trump wants to spend on propping up failing coal plants. Also that other countries contribute to a lot more to fund the fund per capita than the US.


Also US spends around 700 billion a years on their military so it makes a lot of financial sense to reduce the need for foreign intervention by helping development countries mitigate the divesting effects of climate change. Especially since the money spent on that is so tiny compared to US military spending and climate change leading to such severe risks to national and global security.

"Washington, DC, February 24, 2020 — In a comprehensive report released by the “National Security, Military and Intelligence Panel (NSMIP)” of the Center for Climate and Security, experts warn of High-to-Catastrophic threats to security from plausible climate change trajectories – the avoidance of which will require “quickly reducing and phasing out global greenhouse gas emissions.”

The panel, made up of national security, military and intelligence experts, analyzed the globe through the lens of the U.S. Geographic Combatant Commands, and concluded that:

“Even at scenarios of low warming, each region of the world will face severe risks to national and global security in the next three decades. Higher levels of warming will pose catastrophic, and likely irreversible, global security risks over the course of the 21st century.”"




None of what you posted has anything to do do with what I said--- We can have clean energy without needing to hand over billions to third world countries.
 

Why Prolong the Pain? Countries Must End Harmful Allegiance to Paris Agreement
The United Nations’ (UN) collective decision, under the Framework Convention on Climate Change, to wage war on fossil fuels required a draconian energy policy. First it tried the Kyoto Protocol—under which almost no nation lived up to its commitments. Ironically, the United States, which never ratified it, had the world’s best record at reducing greenhouse gas emissions during the period Kyoto covered.
Continue reading →
 
The three billion dollars US would have contribute the Green Climate Fund can be compared to billions of dollars a years Trump wants to spend on propping up failing coal plants. Also that other countries contribute to a lot more to fund the fund per capita than the US.


Also US spends around 700 billion a years on their military so it makes a lot of financial sense to reduce the need for foreign intervention by helping development countries mitigate the divesting effects of climate change. Especially since the money spent on that is so tiny compared to US military spending and climate change leading to such severe risks to national and global security.

"Washington, DC, February 24, 2020 — In a comprehensive report released by the “National Security, Military and Intelligence Panel (NSMIP)” of the Center for Climate and Security, experts warn of High-to-Catastrophic threats to security from plausible climate change trajectories – the avoidance of which will require “quickly reducing and phasing out global greenhouse gas emissions.”

The panel, made up of national security, military and intelligence experts, analyzed the globe through the lens of the U.S. Geographic Combatant Commands, and concluded that:

“Even at scenarios of low warming, each region of the world will face severe risks to national and global security in the next three decades. Higher levels of warming will pose catastrophic, and likely irreversible, global security risks over the course of the 21st century.”"


Please give us a compelling reason why billions of redistribution is needed to curtail the impending climate change?

Did you know... The climate is always changing!

Do you relly think mankind has the power to do more than Mother Nature?
 
None of what you posted has anything to do do with what I said--- We can have clean energy without needing to hand over billions to third world countries.

American states like Texas already benefiting from the dramatic drop in cost of renewable energy thanks to previous investments in mostly other countries that have lead to innovation and economic scale. There US helping developing countries as well as learning and cooperate with other countries can lead to even more economy of scale and innovations with even lower prices and more efficient renewable energy.

 

Why Prolong the Pain? Countries Must End Harmful Allegiance to Paris Agreement
The United Nations’ (UN) collective decision, under the Framework Convention on Climate Change, to wage war on fossil fuels required a draconian energy policy. First it tried the Kyoto Protocol—under which almost no nation lived up to its commitments. Ironically, the United States, which never ratified it, had the world’s best record at reducing greenhouse gas emissions during the period Kyoto covered.
Continue reading →

The economical benefits with renewable energy and the cost of coal is so great that renewable surpass coal even with a president that promised to save coal.

.

While at the same time for example EU countries have a lot higher percent of renewable energy than US and also a lot less pollution per capita. So there can be great potential for the US to speed up the transition.


 
Last edited:
Please give us a compelling reason why billions of redistribution is needed to curtail the impending climate change?

Did you know... The climate is always changing!

Do you relly think mankind has the power to do more than Mother Nature?

Climate change pose a grave global security threat.



 
The economical benefits with renewable energy and the cost of coal is so great that renewable surpass coal even with a president that promised to save coal.

.

While at the same time for example EU countries have a lot higher percent of renewable energy than US and also a lot less pollution per capita. So there can be great potential for the US to speed up the transition.


None of which speaks to the point.
 
0000
American states like Texas already benefiting from the dramatic drop in cost of renewable energy thanks to previous investments in mostly other countries that have lead to innovation and economic scale. There US helping developing countries as well as learning and cooperate with other countries can lead to even more economy of scale and innovations with even lower prices and more efficient renewable energy.


Third world countries are not developing green energy. They are sitting there waiting for developed nations to hand it to them.
 
0000


Third world countries are not developing green energy. They are sitting there waiting for developed nations to hand it to them.
We've already pumped hundreds of billions into Africa to prevent them from doing any development whatsoever, and the IMF is asking for another $345 billion.


This is part of their Marxist "redistribution of wealth" scam and what the leftist Climate Change/Global Warming/Global Cooling movement has always been about for the last 50 years.
 
0000


Third world countries are not developing green energy. They are sitting there waiting for developed nations to hand it to them.

Developing countries invest a lot in renewable energy but their can help to speed up the transition. There this can also lead to economic growth that can also create opportunities for western corporations.


 
We've already pumped hundreds of billions into Africa to prevent them from doing any development whatsoever, and the IMF is asking for another $345 billion.


This is part of their Marxist "redistribution of wealth" scam and what the leftist Climate Change/Global Warming/Global Cooling movement has always been about for the last 50 years.

The focus of that article was on lending not aid. There the article also shows the challenges African countries face. For example, private lenders gladly lend out money to corrupt dictatorships that use that money to benefit themself and loyalists. There those countries are forced to still pay off those loans even after getting a more democratic government. So one proposition would be that lenders would need to prove that the money borrowed benefits the people or they will not get their money paid back.

Another problem is that African countries have to pay high interest rates even if many African countries have strong economic growth that can help to offset the risk.

https://theconversation.com/african...o-much-theyre-paying-too-much-for-debt-131053

Another huge problem is that for example western companies use both illegal and legal ways to avoid paying their taxes for the business in Africa. Robbing those countries of much needed tax income. Tax avoidance is also a global benefit and also western taxpayers could benefit from global cooperation to fight tax avoidance.

https://www.euractiv.com/section/bo...ar-to-illicit-capital-flight-un-report-finds/

Your article also shows how costly the Corona outbreak and also natural disasters are to African countries.. There natural disasters will get a lot worse if we do not take action on climate change there you also can see an increase in the spread of diseases.

https://www.unenvironment.org/ru/node/20771
 

That really good but US emissions per capita is still double or three times bigger than many other developed countries and double that of China. So it can be great opportunities to reduce the emission further. There American corporations also sees the great benefits of a transition towards renewable energy.


 
Greta Melts Down In Reaction To EU Parliament Vote In Favor Of CAP. “We Won’t Forget”!
By P Gosselin on 23. October 2020

Share this...
Share on FacebookTweet about this on Twitter
Teen activist Greta Thunberg is having another temper tantrum right now, and suggests in a tweet there will be retaliation!


Her indignation is a reaction to today’s European Parliament failure to vote down Common Agricultural Policy’s (CAP) watered down changes that include making money available for landscapes that benefit biodiversity, environmental and climate-related measures and direct direct payments for eco-schemes.
The EU Parliaments voted for its plan by a vast margin 425 – 212, with 51 abstaining.
The WWF EU tweeted that the CAP deal has “no environmental credibility”: . . . .
 
With the Paris climate accord and the Sustainable Development Goals, the world has committed to sustainable, equitable development, favouring clean energy. Advancements in technology and steady falls in the prices of new renewable energy generation have recently seen these dip below the cost of new fossil fuel energy in some parts of the world, including in Africa.

But it’s the co-benefits that make renewable energy a standout option in Africa: they can be deployed much faster than fossil fuel power plants, be integrated into diesel-based micro-grids for cost savings and offer improved air quality (particularly over biomass or coal).


 
A transiton towards renewable energy could create millions of jobs and economical oppurtnites in the US.


There renewables are out competing fossil fuels all across



Sadly US have a president that ignored both the great opportunities with renewable energy as well as the massive social and environmental costs of fossil fuels.

 
US will now rejoin the Pairs Accord.


There it also are strong support for a transition towards renewable energy that can create opportunities for all of the USA.


 
US will now rejoin the Pairs Accord.


There it also are strong support for a transition towards renewable energy that can create opportunities for all of the USA.


Why does the left, like the USA being used by the rest of the world?
 
I think the political left finds joy in harming the US!
Not accepting the propogranda from the Koch brothers is not harming the U.S.
 
Not accepting the propogranda from the Koch brothers is not harming the U.S.
The harm cause from joining the Paris accord, has nothing to do with the Koch brothers,
is is simply the funds that will exit the US, and provide no return value.
 
Back
Top Bottom