• 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!

Under Trump, The US has the largest DECREASE in carbon emissions!

ModerationNow!

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 22, 2013
Messages
2,426
Reaction score
1,154
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Despite all the fear mongering from the media, universities and democrats, it turns out that the USA accomplished the largest DECREASE in carbon emissions! Most countries actually INCREASED their emissions, including the European countries most well known for browbeating everyone else! This happened despite the Trump admin being in power, and in spite of our withdraw from the terribly deceptive and unhelpful Paris agreement(I posted a thread with a video describing its laughably corrupt details).

https://capitalresearch.org/article/u-s-achieves-largest-decrease-in-carbon-emissionswithout-the-paris-climate-accord/
 

Grand Mal

bas air son Eachin
DP Veteran
Joined
May 6, 2013
Messages
39,927
Reaction score
21,566
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Liberal
Despite all the fear mongering from the media, universities and democrats, it turns out that the USA accomplished the largest DECREASE in carbon emissions! Most countries actually INCREASED their emissions, including the European countries most well known for browbeating everyone else! This happened despite the Trump admin being in power, and in spite of our withdraw from the terribly deceptive and unhelpful Paris agreement(I posted a thread with a video describing its laughably corrupt details).


Got anythingthat backs up this, uh, remarkable claim?
 

ataraxia

DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 18, 2016
Messages
27,315
Reaction score
10,268
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
Despite all the fear mongering from the media, universities and democrats, it turns out that the USA accomplished the largest DECREASE in carbon emissions! Most countries actually INCREASED their emissions, including the European countries most well known for browbeating everyone else! This happened despite the Trump admin being in power, and in spite of our withdraw from the terribly deceptive and unhelpful Paris agreement(I posted a thread with a video describing its laughably corrupt details).

https://capitalresearch.org/article/u-s-achieves-largest-decrease-in-carbon-emissionswithout-the-paris-climate-accord/

Even if true, why is that important? I thought climate change was just a Chinese hoax.

And second of all, if true, why antagonize and alienate so many of our allies, break our agreements, and weaken our word, by breaking the Paris Accord? It seems like all that did was make us lost any credibility with any future international agreements we may want to enter in.
 

Acadia

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 14, 2018
Messages
16,992
Reaction score
10,713
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Private
Even if true, why is that important? I thought climate change was just a Chinese hoax.

And second of all, if true, why antagonize and alienate so many of our allies, break our agreements, and weaken our word, by breaking the Paris Accord? It seems like all that did was make us lost any credibility with any future international agreements we may want to enter in.

Allies? You mean fair-weathered friends who like us when they're benefitting?
And "our word"? No, it wasn't "our word". It was Obama's word which was only binding as long as he was President, since in this case, as in others, he decided his virtue-signalling legacy was all important and he bypassed the Senate to adopt the agreement with an EO.
Elections have consequences.
 

ataraxia

DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 18, 2016
Messages
27,315
Reaction score
10,268
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
Allies? You mean fair-weathered friends who like us when they're benefitting?
And "our word"? No, it wasn't "our word". It was Obama's word which was only binding as long as he was President, since in this case, as in others, he decided his virtue-signalling legacy was all important and he bypassed the Senate to adopt the agreement with an EO.
Elections have consequences.

So any time anyone signs an agreement with us, they can expect it to be good for only the term of that president? And then they can expect us to cuss them out and rip it up, even if we end up doing everything that was in the agreement anyway?

That seems a little unnecessarily hostile. But oh well. Whatever turns you on man.
 

Manc Skipper

Wrinkly member
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 25, 2008
Messages
34,988
Reaction score
23,847
Location
Southern England
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
America doesn't make anything under Trump, it's all made in China, which is where your pollution and (jobs) has gone.
 

Perotista

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 31, 2013
Messages
26,538
Reaction score
19,142
Location
Georgia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
Allies? You mean fair-weathered friends who like us when they're benefitting?
And "our word"? No, it wasn't "our word". It was Obama's word which was only binding as long as he was President, since in this case, as in others, he decided his virtue-signalling legacy was all important and he bypassed the Senate to adopt the agreement with an EO.
Elections have consequences.

You have a valid point. It's like the Iran deal, between Obama and Iran, not the U.S. because the senate never ratified it. It's much like Nixon's agreement with then South Vietnam's president Theiu to come to the aid of South Vietnam if the North ever broke the Paris Peace Pact. It also was never ratified, the deal was good as long as Nixon was president and could enforce it. Paris Climate, Iran, since no ratification by senate also made them just presidential agreements or deals. Much like G.H.W. Bush's agreement with Gorbachev not to expand NATO any further east than Germany if Gorbachev let East and West Germany unite peacefully. That deal or agreement meant nothing after G.H.W. Bush left office. All these deals, agreements was up to future presidents to either abide by them or not. No ratification by the senate, future presidents can do as they please with these types of deals, agreements.
 

Acadia

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 14, 2018
Messages
16,992
Reaction score
10,713
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Private
So any time anyone signs an agreement with us, they can expect it to be good for only the term of that president? And then they can expect us to cuss them out and rip it up, even if we end up doing everything that was in the agreement anyway?

That seems a little unnecessarily hostile. But oh well. Whatever turns you on man.
Really, no need for a personal snark attack. I'm simply stating FACTS. Your straw man argument leads me to believe you didn't know that Obama did this and yes, of course that means the next administration could change things. I hope you realize how our legislative branch works, as opposed to Executive Orders.
 

Acadia

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 14, 2018
Messages
16,992
Reaction score
10,713
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Private
You have a valid point. It's like the Iran deal, between Obama and Iran, not the U.S. because the senate never ratified it. It's much like Nixon's agreement with then South Vietnam's president Theiu to come to the aid of South Vietnam if the North ever broke the Paris Peace Pact. It also was never ratified, the deal was good as long as Nixon was president and could enforce it. Paris Climate, Iran, since no ratification by senate also made them just presidential agreements or deals. Much like G.H.W. Bush's agreement with Gorbachev not to expand NATO any further east than Germany if Gorbachev let East and West Germany unite peacefully. That deal or agreement meant nothing after G.H.W. Bush left office. All these deals, agreements was up to future presidents to either abide by them or not. No ratification by the senate, future presidents can do as they please with these types of deals, agreements.

Which is why Hillary was the anointed one, because she would continue Obama's legacy and basically, his Presidency.
 

Perotista

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 31, 2013
Messages
26,538
Reaction score
19,142
Location
Georgia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
Which is why Hillary was the anointed one, because she would continue Obama's legacy and basically, his Presidency.

Hillary did campaign on being an third Obama term. There's no doubt about that.
 

Trippy Trekker

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 26, 2016
Messages
8,406
Reaction score
2,998
Location
Tampa Bay area
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Progressive
First off, the OP uses a Right Wing Nut source to make a point... a source dedicated to oppose anything perceived as a Liberal cause.

Second, Chump enjoys saying he loves coal... and that because of him, coal production has increased.

Third, the article cites the replacement of coal with natural gas as the main reason Carbon Emissions dropped.

AEI reported that in 2017, U.S. carbon emissions decreased by more than 42 million tons. Despite departing from the Paris agreement, the U.S. significantly reduced its carbon footprint this year. This remarkable success can be attributed to substituting natural gas for coal. We’re upholding our end of the contract and we’re not even signees anymore!

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/capital-research-center/
https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Capital_Research_Center
https://www.spglobal.com/marketintelligence/en/news-insights/trending/teasbvm5iwmbqsrjyipwea2

Chump nominated scoundrel and anti-environmentalist Scott Pruitt to head the EPA. His lack of ethics resulted in his departure. A former Coal Lobbyist, Andrew Wheeler, now heads the EPA.

Chump has very little concern for long term environmental issues.
 

ashurbanipal

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 8, 2005
Messages
7,673
Reaction score
2,366
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Private
Despite all the fear mongering from the media, universities and democrats, it turns out that the USA accomplished the largest DECREASE in carbon emissions! Most countries actually INCREASED their emissions, including the European countries most well known for browbeating everyone else! This happened despite the Trump admin being in power, and in spite of our withdraw from the terribly deceptive and unhelpful Paris agreement(I posted a thread with a video describing its laughably corrupt details).

https://capitalresearch.org/article/u-s-achieves-largest-decrease-in-carbon-emissionswithout-the-paris-climate-accord/

Hmmm...so, in looking at the source data on which this article is based (the BP Statistical Review of World Energy, found here: https://www.bp.com/content/dam/bp/business-sites/en/global/corporate/pdfs/energy-economics/statistical-review/bp-stats-review-2018-full-report.pdf), it appears the main feature claim of the article is correct, but rather misleading.

The claim is that the U.S. posted the biggest decline in carbon emissions in 2017 of any country (and therefore, by implication, Trump is some kind of climate savior in disguise, while Obama was really a gas guzzling emissions hog in disguise). According to the BP report, the claim about emissions reduction is true--the reduction was indeed about 42 million tons. However, the total emissions output hovered, for the last decade, around 5.5 billion tons. The Obama years saw some significantly larger reductions--from 08 to 09 there was a reduction of nearly 400 million tons, and the entire period of Obama's Presidency saw a reduction of a little over 500 million tons--about 10% of total CO2 emissions. There were, to be fair, years in which emissions rose during Obama's presidency, but the overall trend was toward reduction of emissions.

In context of the total emissions produced, a reduction of 42 million tons is anemic, at best. It represents about 7/10ths of a percent reduction. Hardly anything to cheer about. Other countries, notably Mexico, outstrip us significantly in reducing their proportional emissions.

In short, this "article" is really an exercise in propaganda. It's a little like an article that once appeared in Pravda about an international car race. The headline read: The Russian Car Came in Second, while the American Car Came in Next to Last!!! The article didn't mention that there were only two cars in the race. Technically true, but very misleading. Where the rhetoric of the article sort-of directs your thinking to go is not remotely warranted by any examination of the data.
 
Last edited:
Top Bottom