Why Is The Paris Accord Even Necessary?

[reinoe]

Apparently some 68 mayors, and at least 3 governors have said they are going to honor the climate change whatever the ****s. Why was it even necessary to have the accord if all these bleeding heart liberals could have just fought climate change all on their own without help? It reminds me of a 6 year old screaming and whining to get a Capri-sun and when nobody gets it for them they get their ass off the couch and gets it themselves.

But I would point out that I bet if all these mayors and governors don't meet the metrics of the accords, then they won't be funneling money into the climate change fund. Liberals are such obvious hypocrites, but please, if I missed something let me know. If these liberals had the capacity to lower greenhouse emissions all along what has been stopping them from making their cities greener? What has been stopping them from mandating that any manufacturing in their states limit pollution? It makes no sense.

 

[Jetboogieman]

It reminds me of a 6 year old screaming and whining to get a Capri-sun and when nobody gets it for them they get their ass off the couch and gets it themselves..

And THAT analogy reminds me of Donald Trump.

 

[Skeptic Bob]

They don't have the ability to do it all on their own.

 

[reinoe]

They don't have the ability to do it all on their own.

Yeah, they do...they just don't want to do the work.

 

[Skeptic Bob]

Yeah, they do...they just don't want to do the work.

No, they don't. It is too big a project for one town, one state, or even one country to tackle. There are plenty of issues, perhaps even most, that can be solved at the local level. Climate change isn't one of them.

 

[reinoe]

No, they don't. It is too big a project for one town, one state, or even one country to tackle. There are plenty of issues, perhaps even most, that can be solved at the local level. Climate change isn't one of them.

A state can manage pollution by creating environmental mandates. California places particular limits when to comes to auto fuel. There are lots of options available, that these cities and states refuse to even employ. It's sloth exemplified.

 

[cabse5]

It isn't. I heard on TV, today, this comment of the world approaching the temperature of no return. In other words, If I remember correctly, less than a 4 degree increase in global temperatures will indundate the globe.
So, what causes climate change? Anyone know? No one knows. When we approach the temperature of no return, will we double down on curbing CO2 emissions, exclusively, or, maybe, try to curb other greenhouse gases? Hum?

The Paris Agreement deals exclusively with curbing CO2. Does CO2 exclusively cause climate change?

There are many greenhouse gases. Water vapor (which consititues approximately 95% of all greenhouse gases), methane (less than 1% percent of all greenhouse gases), CO2 (less than 5% of all greenhouse gases...and one other greenhouse gas that I can't remember.

Note: CO2 CONSTITUTES LESS THAN 5% OF ALL GREENHOUSE GASES.

Exclusively curbing CO2 is the fake news that environmental scientists and the MSM use to prevent climate change. The same type of fake news that is now Russian conspiracies by the Trump campaign.
The Paris Agreement is garbage. More so since the US is reamed by the agreement. Good ridance.

 

[Skeptic Bob]

A state can manage pollution by creating environmental mandates. California places particular limits when to comes to auto fuel. There are lots of options available, that these cities and states refuse to even employ. It's sloth exemplified.

I can't tell if you are being obtuse or actually don't understand the way the climate works. States don't have self contained climates. A single state could do absolutely everything perfectly, bringing their carbon emissions to zero and go 100% green and it won't matter.

 

[cabse5]

I can't tell if you are being obtuse or actually don't understand the way the climate works. States don't have self contained climates. A single state could do absolutely everything perfectly, bringing their carbon emissions to zero and go 100% green and it won't matter.

It will just tax the *** out of businesses and individuals. Dumb politicians.

 

[Skeptic Bob]

It will just tax the *** out of businesses and individuals. Dumb politicians.

And if everyone else isn't onboard then it puts those who are onboard, voluntarily or by mandate, at a competitive disadvantage.

 

[reinoe]

I can't tell if you are being obtuse or actually don't understand the way the climate works. States don't have self contained climates. A single state could do absolutely everything perfectly, bringing their carbon emissions to zero and go 100% green and it won't matter.

That's not me being obtuse.
Governor/Mayor of location x wants to fight climate change. There is nothing now or ever has been stopping them from initiating whatever regulations, guidelines, or protocols that limit pollution. If state x,y, and z decide to limit their pollution output and cities 1-100 limit their output, then they are having a positive effect on stopping climate change.

A person in Alabama is not preventing a person in California from reducing their carbon footprint. It's not a single sum all or nothing game. Nothing has ever stopped any of these liberals from working to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. They simply never did it because they're either lazy or they're hypocrites. It's clear by these sudden bold and outspoken proclamations of support that they always had the capability of reducing their emission but deliberately chose not to do so.

The difference here is that maybe some people give 0 ****s, maybe people, don't believe in the method/goals of the accords, maybe some people actually think we're in the middle of global cooling. What matters is that now people are not being forced to do something they don't want to to do AND they aren't being forced to subsidize actions they don't believe in.

And here's the rub that keeps getting glossed over: there are no enforcement guidelines. If the U.S. invests hundreds of billions of dollars trying to meet these goals on a nationwide level at the expense of jobs and higher energy costs and China/India/Craplackistan brushes it off, nothing. Nothing happens. The U.S. or any other signatory puts themselves in a competitive disadvantage for no other reason than feel-good hippy dippy ideology. Not even santions. Nothing. Furthermore, as has been explained many times, there are supposed penalties for not meeting these goals. These penalties go to fund the climate change bank.

Now to the U.S. that has no qualms about throwing money away and it's no big deal because the U.S. pisses money away on frivolous b.s. all the time. but again, it's voluntarily putting yourself at a competitive disadvantage or funneling government money to some crony who works at the fund. And there's also no accountability for how funding at the bank gets used. So it's money going into a black hole with no accountability. It's pointless bureaucracy at it's worst and I'm not surprised that it's the brainchild of the E.U.

Now your argument seems to be that "everyone should be forced to contribute otherwise it doesn't matter" and that's b.s. given the Accords numerous flaws. Furthermore every little bit helps. That's always been the case no matter what on everything ever.

 

[AlbqOwl]

No, they don't. It is too big a project for one town, one state, or even one country to tackle. There are plenty of issues, perhaps even most, that can be solved at the local level. Climate change isn't one of them.

Sure they can. Look at California. All they have to mandate is that the cars meet certain fuel and emission standards to be sold or licensed in their state. They can mandate that certain toilets and light bulbs be used. They can refuse to license coal fired plants, and subsidize solar and wind farms etc. They can do pretty much everything that was mandated at the federal level. California is already doing most of this stuff. A tweak or two and they'll exceed expectations of the Paris Accord.

Of course the climate will still change regardless of what anybody does and it will continue to be more difficult to live, work, and make a living in California most especially if you run a business. But who cares. They can still be smug and righteous.

And when the scientists can prove to the rest of us that AGW is real at a significant level, is causing harm, and can do that without cooking the books or leaving out information or ignoring some data while embracing other, the rest of the states will no doubt follow suit.

It will be interesting to see how many stick to their stories if all that lovely grant money starts drying up.

But as for the Paris Accord itself, I have mixed emotions. I do think study of the issue should continue with a focus on doing the best science possible, and I do think it is useful for the nations to share information and technology. But the President is tired of the USA getting the short end of the stick while the American people are expected to shoulder the burden more than anybody else.

Our participation won't end over night. I'm willing to wait to see where this is all going to go.

 

[Manc Skipper]

The leaving process takes four years. The new President will re-sign, leaving Syria the only non-signatory.

 

[Fenton]

Apparently some 68 mayors, and at least 3 governors have said they are going to honor the climate change whatever the ****s. Why was it even necessary to have the accord if all these bleeding heart liberals could have just fought climate change all on their own without help? It reminds me of a 6 year old screaming and whining to get a Capri-sun and when nobody gets it for them they get their ass off the couch and gets it themselves.

But I would point out that I bet if all these mayors and governors don't meet the metrics of the accords, then they won't be funneling money into the climate change fund. Liberals are such obvious hypocrites, but please, if I missed something let me know. If these liberals had the capacity to lower greenhouse emissions all along what has been stopping them from making their cities greener? What has been stopping them from mandating that any manufacturing in their states limit pollution? It makes no sense.

Lol....good things its non-binding and you made some excellent points.

I wonder if theyre going to send their municipal revenues off to undeveloped Countries ? Or are they going to ignore that part of the accord ?

 

[Fenton]

The leaving process takes four years. The new President will re-sign, leaving Syria the only non-signatory.

And ? Its a non-binding agreement, we wont be sending billions of dollars over the next 4 - 8 years to fund a slush fund and we wont be lowering carbon emissions and driving our economy into the ground and energy prices up

 

[Mycroft]

Apparently some 68 mayors, and at least 3 governors have said they are going to honor the climate change whatever the ****s. Why was it even necessary to have the accord if all these bleeding heart liberals could have just fought climate change all on their own without help? It reminds me of a 6 year old screaming and whining to get a Capri-sun and when nobody gets it for them they get their ass off the couch and gets it themselves.

But I would point out that I bet if all these mayors and governors don't meet the metrics of the accords, then they won't be funneling money into the climate change fund. Liberals are such obvious hypocrites, but please, if I missed something let me know. If these liberals had the capacity to lower greenhouse emissions all along what has been stopping them from making their cities greener? What has been stopping them from mandating that any manufacturing in their states limit pollution? It makes no sense.

Those guys won't do a damned thing. They don't have the money and if they pass mandates on the businesses in their own states, those businesses will leave.

They are just posturing. In effect, they are saying, "See!! I will do it even if Trump won't! I'm better than he is!" It's all empty rhetoric.

Thing is, Trump know this about them. He knows the statements from Macron and Merkel are also empty rhetoric. He will ignore them because they have no way to influence him and he has his intentions to back himself up.

 

[sear]

" Quote Originally Posted by Skeptic Bob View Post
I can't tell if you are being obtuse or actually don't understand the way the climate works. States don't have self contained climates. A single state could do absolutely everything perfectly, bringing their carbon emissions to zero and go 100% green and it won't matter." from post #11

Premised on anthropogenic climate change,
- it's a global problem, and thus would seem to need

- a global solution.

Burying your Hummer in the back yard might be a lovely gesture. But it's not going to compensate for President Trump reactivating our formerly dwindling coal industry.

 

[Mr Person]

Apparently some 68 mayors, and at least 3 governors have said they are going to honor the climate change whatever the ****s. Why was it even necessary to have the accord if all these bleeding heart liberals could have just fought climate change all on their own without help? It reminds me of a 6 year old screaming and whining to get a Capri-sun and when nobody gets it for them they get their ass off the couch and gets it themselves.

But I would point out that I bet if all these mayors and governors don't meet the metrics of the accords, then they won't be funneling money into the climate change fund. Liberals are such obvious hypocrites, but please, if I missed something let me know. If these liberals had the capacity to lower greenhouse emissions all along what has been stopping them from making their cities greener? What has been stopping them from mandating that any manufacturing in their states limit pollution? It makes no sense.

yeah, man, a mayor is worth like three countries!

 

[CriticalThought]

Apparently some 68 mayors, and at least 3 governors have said they are going to honor the climate change whatever the ****s. Why was it even necessary to have the accord if all these bleeding heart liberals could have just fought climate change all on their own without help? It reminds me of a 6 year old screaming and whining to get a Capri-sun and when nobody gets it for them they get their ass off the couch and gets it themselves.

But I would point out that I bet if all these mayors and governors don't meet the metrics of the accords, then they won't be funneling money into the climate change fund. Liberals are such obvious hypocrites, but please, if I missed something let me know. If these liberals had the capacity to lower greenhouse emissions all along what has been stopping them from making their cities greener? What has been stopping them from mandating that any manufacturing in their states limit pollution? It makes no sense.

Lol. How many Conservatives support the Paris accords and why? This isn't a partisan issue, but it is ungodly amusing watching people filtering it through their worldview like it is one. When the Pope is seen as too liberal, you know the far right is controlling the narrative.

 

[ashurbanipal]

Apparently some 68 mayors, and at least 3 governors have said they are going to honor the climate change whatever the ****s. Why was it even necessary to have the accord if all these bleeding heart liberals could have just fought climate change all on their own without help? It reminds me of a 6 year old screaming and whining to get a Capri-sun and when nobody gets it for them they get their ass off the couch and gets it themselves.

Governor/Mayor of location x wants to fight climate change. There is nothing now or ever has been stopping them from initiating whatever regulations, guidelines, or protocols that limit pollution...

A state can manage pollution by creating environmental mandates. California places particular limits when to comes to auto fuel. There are lots of options available, that these cities and states refuse to even employ. It's sloth exemplified.

Man, this is downright silly. Or slothful. Not sure which. Cities and states have been formulating their own regulations for quite some time. Perhaps you just couldn't be bothered to look them up, so you're screaming and whining for someone else to do it?

https://www.c2es.org/us-states-regions/key-legislation

https://insideclimatenews.org/news/01062016/new-york-climate-change-legislation-zero-emissions-2050

http://sfmea.sfplanning.org/GHG_Reduction_Strategy.pdf

Just a few links I found in a minute or so on google...

 

[reinoe]

Man, this is downright silly. Or slothful. Not sure which. Cities and states have been formulating their own regulations for quite some time. Perhaps you just couldn't be bothered to look them up, so you're crying for someone else to do it?

https://www.c2es.org/us-states-regions/key-legislation

https://insideclimatenews.org/news/01062016/new-york-climate-change-legislation-zero-emissions-2050

http://sfmea.sfplanning.org/GHG_Reduction_Strategy.pdf

Just a few links I found in a minute or so on google...

All that does is reinforce my point. These local municipalities and governorships have always had the ability to cut down on emissions. Whether or not the United States is a member of the Paris accord has no bearing on their ability to affect climate change. So why are they complaining?

 

[ashurbanipal]

All that does is reinforce my point. These local municipalities and governorships have always had the ability to cut down on emissions. Whether or not the United States is a member of the Paris accord has no bearing on their ability to affect climate change. So why are they complaining?

Two points:

1. It most certainly does not reinforce your point. You likened the governors and mayors who are saying they will continue to abide by the Paris accords to six-year-olds screaming for someone else to get them a capri sun, when they could have been doing something themselves all along. They have been doing something all along.

2. As several others have already pointed out, those local efforts will do a little good, but not much. These localities are doing what they have the power to do, but ultimately, there has to be a global agreement for there to be any substantive effect. The Paris accords didn't go far enough, but in a world where people almost never agree, it was a good first step.

 

[cAPSLOCK]

Lol. How many Conservatives support the Paris accords and why? This isn't a partisan issue, but it is ungodly amusing watching people filtering it through their worldview like it is one. When the Pope is seen as too liberal, you know the far right is controlling the narrative.

Or that the Pope is too liberal... :shrug::shrug:

 

[VanceMack]

The PCA was always worthless. Obama knew that. He knew that even with him signing it there was no possibility that it would or could be executed. It was not a treaty. It was merely an executive agreement. However because of its nature it could not be enforceable.

Resolved, That it is the sense of the Senate that--

(1) the United States should not be a signatory to any protocol to, or other agreement regarding, the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change of 1992, at negotiations in Kyoto in December 1997, or thereafter, which would--

(A) mandate new commitments to limit or reduce greenhouse gas emissions for the Annex I Parties, unless the protocol or other agreement also mandates new specific scheduled commitments to limit or reduce greenhouse gas emissions for Developing Country Parties within the same compliance period, or

(B) would result in serious harm to the economy of the United States; and

(2) any such protocol or other agreement which would require the advice and consent of the Senate to ratification should be accompanied by a detailed explanation of any legislation or regulatory actions that may be required to implement the protocol or other agreement and should also be accompanied by an analysis of the detailed financial costs and other impacts on the economy of the United States which would be incurred by the implementation of the protocol or other agreement.

SEC. 2. The Secretary of the Senate shall transmit a copy of this resolution to the President.


Byrd-Hagel was passed unanimously by the senate. This whole thing was worthless and Obama knew it. It could not be implemented and again...Obama knew it.

 

[cabse5]

Those guys won't do a damned thing. They don't have the money and if they pass mandates on the businesses in their own states, those businesses will leave.

They are just posturing. In effect, they are saying, "See!! I will do it even if Trump won't! I'm better than he is!" It's all empty rhetoric.

Thing is, Trump know this about them. He knows the statements from Macron and Merkel are also empty rhetoric. He will ignore them because they have no way to influence him and he has his intentions to back himself up.

And, I might point out, the said politicians won't get reelected (unless it's California with that wildly maniacal rhetoric).