|
|
Salamandre
Admirable
Omnipresent Hero
Wog refugee
|
posted June 05, 2017 06:18 PM |
|
|
Minion said:
The reason Donald wants out is that maybe he truly believes it is a hoax. Watching too much Fox News will do that to you, lol.
Hopefully I watch both CNN and Fox so while on CNN all I hear is "Trump is an idiot for getting out, seas will rise then world will collapse", on Fox actually I get explained the terms of the Paris deal, why it was unfair to USA and why it needs to be renegotiated, without moral tantrums.
Minion said:
The Head of Chinese Government Mr Li pointed out: "Fighting climate change is a global consensus, it's not invented by China.".
Because China is fighting climate change? How? China and India are the two biggest world polluters yet they are exempt of ANY restrictions until 2021, as points the Paris deal. Meanwhile, it is US which gives to each of them 1 billion dollar yearly, to "fight pollution".
There is nothing about climate change being a hoax or whatever. All is about having a fair deal. As long as billions of dollars circulate in such agreement, and they do, I can get why those who pay the most are not happy with.
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted June 05, 2017 07:24 PM |
|
|
1- There is something called the continuity of the state, and goverments, at least credible ones, are not supposed to back down on international agreements. Especially ones involving long term solutions to global problems like this.
2- China and India are not the biggest contributers, U.S. is and it's contribution to global warming surpasses any country, including China (the second) by far: Source. India and China are expected to be the biggest in not so distant future hence the transition period, since they are not as technologically advanced or economically wealthy as US. they need the industry more through the transition.
3- Even if these werent so, in an age when every scientist involved in the matter is practically screaming that counter measures to global warming should be immediate or the consequences will be catastrophic, backing down on such a deal as the most powerful country in the world and saying "it affects American jobs badly" is not just moronic and short-sighted, it is horrific and egocentric to the point of horror.
There is no debate here, there is no two-sides to the story. He screwed up big time.
____________
Are you pretty? This is my occasion. - Ghost
|
|
Blizzardboy
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Nerf Herder
|
|
posted June 05, 2017 07:26 PM |
|
|
@Sal
It's not about equality. It's about equity. Developing countries are being given extra time to prepare while wealthier nations get the ball rolling. This international agreement is very much a prototype still and will evolve in the coming decades. Making some concessions for nations with high rates of poverty is perfectly sensible and not screwing the US over, per se, unless you want to drive countries like China and India away. Just think about it from their perspective: that the US industrialized without restrictions in the 20th century and until not so long ago was the world's biggest polluter, and now that emerging powers are having their turn to develop, they are being asked to show moderation. So, if you want a middle ground then Paris is already the middle ground. But, it apparently isn't good enough for this new administration. Very ungraceful.
Edit: But, you are correct that Fox news is not spamming that climate change is a hoax. That is just more polemic nonsense of our age.
____________
"Folks, I don't trust children. They're here to replace us."
|
|
verriker
Honorable
Legendary Hero
We don't need another 'eroes
|
|
posted June 05, 2017 07:45 PM |
|
|
for my share if I will put it in a polite terms I think that if one will defend the trump's actions to sabotage the Paris Accord then you are just being provocative for fun because that is not possible to take seriously lol
____________
|
|
Salamandre
Admirable
Omnipresent Hero
Wog refugee
|
|
posted June 05, 2017 08:29 PM |
|
|
@artu@blizz
You contradict each other on the core when defending same cause. One says the world is near collapsing ("every scientist involved in the matter is practically screaming that counter measures to global warming should be immediate or the consequences will be catastrophic"), the other says "Developing countries are being given extra time to prepare" so let them pollute at full rate, for an undetermined time. China is producing twice more CO2 than USA, so what about put it in simple terms: if we are near the catastrophe, logically everyone should stop, now. Or maybe the predicted catastrophe isn't a catastrophe then?
artu said:
is not just moronic and short-sighted, it is horrific and egocentric to the point of horror.
There is no debate here, there is no two-sides to the story. He screwed up big time.
Politic agreements and deals are not quantifiable by damsels morals. Obama imprisoned thousands of people without even judging or incriminating them and he received the Nobel of peace, this is like glorifying Stalin or Mao. Yet we know things are more complex than they look at the surface. There should ALWAYS exist a debate where both sides arguments be heard. What is horrific is when someone self proclaims he detains the absolute and indisputable truth, there is a medical condition for that.
@verriker
I believe in individual responsibility, not in someone I don't know (far away leaders) setting the parameters I should live by, while themselves don't ever follow them. Every morning, near my house, I see passing by those calling Trump a disaster because he backed the Paris deal, thousands of them. They look comfortable in their car (one for each of them), spending 1-2 hours in the traffic jam, polluting as much as they can. I don't drive and I never did, because I consider its effects as toxic to the planet. So what is provocative, imo, is accusing people of not respecting values yourself don't care about, seriously. And this is what most of people do.
Also I hate the pack attitude, when I see 99% of people attacking on one, I always side withe that one. Sorry, this just lights something in my head, I can't do else.
*******
In my opinion, Trump is pushed by his pre-presidential agenda, so he doesn't look to have much choice. Renegotiating Paris deal was part of his program, he was elected on this. But what eructs me the most is people falling to the "moral" litany like "is moronic, provocative etc" while we all know that a) Trump is in the white house for 4 years so if he doesn't fulfill expectations, people will elect someone else, then b) the Paris deal was set to be effective starting in 2021. Also, from what I've been explained -feel free to correct me, Trump is not going to renegotiate the pollution amount in itself, but the way China and India are considered, also the amount of money they receive from USA. And above all, this is about renegotiating, not backing out.
|
|
verriker
Honorable
Legendary Hero
We don't need another 'eroes
|
|
posted June 05, 2017 08:45 PM |
|
|
it is not funny mate, I will admit some altreich provocations and jokes can be funny at times but for this matter it is not,
if I would give my honest opinion on that decision I would receive a penalty or be banned for my bad language, bear in mind I give you credit that you are an intelligent person so I am polite to point out that for you to spend valuable moments in your life to write a comedic "b-but b-both sides" defense of a clown show maneuver of a malevolent clown is a clear example of trolling lol
____________
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted June 05, 2017 08:56 PM |
|
|
Agree with verriker and artu (needless to say). The fact that even within the US so many towns and corps pledged to keep to Paris speaks volumes. If it WAS unfair for the US as a whole this wouldn't be the case.
Then there is the general principle to consider. The political representatives of a country change on a regular basis; if every representavive can cancel deals made by their predecessors FOR THEIR COUNTRY, their can't be any continuity, reliability or progress.
That way, NOTHING will ever work on any level.
|
|
blizzardboy
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Nerf Herder
|
|
posted June 05, 2017 09:02 PM |
|
|
Salamandre said:
You contradict each other on the core when defending same cause. One says the world is near collapsing ("every scientist involved in the matter is practically screaming that counter measures to global warming should be immediate or the consequences will be catastrophic"), the other says "Developing countries are being given extra time to prepare" so let them pollute at full rate, for an undetermined time. China is producing twice more CO2 than USA, so what about put it in simple terms: if we are near the catastrophe, logically everyone should stop, now. Or maybe the predicted catastrophe isn't a catastrophe then?
@Sal:
The official goal of Paris is to prevent manmade climate change from exceeding a global increase of 2C as a hardcap, and to prevent a global increase of 1.5C as a preference. A 2 degree increase will still have very significant deleterious effects particularly on coastal biomes, which is also where the plurality of the world's economy and population is located. It is not the end of the world if temperatures increase above 2C but it is a costly and damaging outcome, more so than any perceived lose of profit from moderating emissions. The Accord goes deeper than temperature, but temperatures are the most obvious effect that is not a localized event.
China & co. do not pollute to their heart's content. I don't know if you've ever flown into Mumbai or Shanghai. I live in the Rocky time zone of the United States and here's a spoiler alert: the environment & air quality goes from beautiful to appalling. The effects of course aren't merely cosmetic: pollution is a major health & longevity hazard in addition to its inadvertent damage to the economy. Without any Paris Accord, China & India have already been working to deal with the problem because it is in their self-interest to contend with the localized conditions. It's not really so different from what the United States had to do post-WW2 to clean up its cities and encourage urban migration and white collar professional expansion. However the Paris Accord provides data-driven goals, international solidarity, and puts an additional layer of accountability onto countries. It also helps provide protection from the fickleness of internal & regional politics: as legislative and executive personnel inevitably change from year to year, there remains the continuity of goals outlined within international agreements.
Hopefully I am making sense to you. This is the official policy of the Accord, being guided by highly qualified scientists & policymakers, and removed from any childish dramatics from individual people. Do you see the distinction between equality and equity?
Trump is less like a man protecting American interests and more like a dog that won't let go of its bone in order to seize a better one. He is mired in the notion of 'equality' which has never been a very practical starting point for getting something accomplished when there are many parties involved with unique needs.
____________
"Folks, I don't trust children. They're here to replace us."
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted June 05, 2017 09:19 PM |
|
Edited by artu at 21:23, 05 Jun 2017.
|
Now that's really rich, Sal, when I say "there's no debate here" I obviously dont mean to suggest outlawing opinions but emphasizing that the act is so blatantly wrong, that it doesn't involve subtle nuances where both parties may have fair angles. There's a name for ignoring something so transparent also and it's not something as innocent as a medical condition.
The transition period is the only way to win the developing economies in this imperfect world and their situation is not comparable to U.S. which had already signed and which is numero uno global warmer as of now despite what you suggest as I already linked. So, if there is anything contradicting it is you switching from "Trump is perfectly reasonable doing this" to "well, politics is not based on morality."
Btw, China's contribution (which isnt more than U.S.) is also significantly caused by what they are shipping to U.S. and other developed countries, so U.S. backing out on the deal (or "renegotiating" an already signed deal, in your terminology, as far as I'm concerned you negotiate before you sign, that's the very point of signing, you state that you agree on terms) indirectly affects that, too.
You imply being objective and so on, yet in this thread or anywhere else, all you display is an apologetic approach to Trump, full of whataboutisms, no matter how big he screws up. Even big American companies such as General Motors, Google, Microsoft declared they don't approve of this, put aside all of the countries in the world from Germany to China to Canada. Yet, here we are facing you, explaining to us how normal it is for Trump to behave the way he does. I mean, if this is about suppoting the underdog as you suggest, I'm sure you can find somebody more in need than the billonaire born president of the U.S.A.!
____________
Are you pretty? This is my occasion. - Ghost
|
|
Salamandre
Admirable
Omnipresent Hero
Wog refugee
|
|
posted June 05, 2017 09:31 PM |
|
|
@Blizz, China is ranked n*1 in air pollution damage, nearly 1 million people die from pollution in China every year.
Today there are China and India which need a free pollution card, tomorrow there will be Pakistan, then Nigeria (391 millions of people by 2050), then the rest of Africa, then the rest of Asia, then... this will never stop because everybody wants to develop. Then will be great to explain why our planet became an arid rock, thanks to the equity. I get your points, Amen.
|
|
Blizzardboy
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Nerf Herder
|
|
posted June 05, 2017 09:41 PM |
|
|
Facts as they currently exist: China and India already have strong pressure within their borders to reduce pollution, because they're on the frontline suffering from it. Nobody (except maybe N. Korea) is going to voluntarily turn their cities into an ashtray. It's ludicrous. People have to live, work, relax, and raise families.
You want to sit in your nice apartment in Paris, France and whine about ex-colonial developing countries not trying hard enough, fine. You can renegotiate like Trump and find yourself alienated and have zero Accord at all instead of the current one.
Heading true north isn't the fastest way to go north if it leads you into a swamp. You need to use prudence in navigation.
____________
"Folks, I don't trust children. They're here to replace us."
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted June 05, 2017 09:42 PM |
|
Edited by artu at 21:43, 05 Jun 2017.
|
|
Not all types of air pollution may be giving the same amount of cause to global warming, because when it comes to contribution to global warming, U.S. is way ahead of China, I linked the numbers.
|
|
Minion
Legendary Hero
|
|
posted June 05, 2017 10:41 PM |
|
Edited by Minion at 22:43, 05 Jun 2017.
|
@Salamandre. In 2015 China came in first for total kilotons of carbon dioxide emitted, yes. Per capita, however, the U.S. pumped out more CO2 than China and India combined in 2015. Check your facts.
Examining CO2 per capita around the world shows the gulf between the developed world's responsibility for climate change and that of the developing world.
Also what the heck do you mean by renegotiating the deal? It makes no sense because the agreement is non-binding. Trump could unilaterally change the commitments offered by President Barack Obama, which is technically allowed under the Accord. But there is no appetite to renegotiate the entire agreement, as made very clear by various world leaders after his announcement.
|
|
verriker
Honorable
Legendary Hero
We don't need another 'eroes
|
|
posted June 05, 2017 10:57 PM |
|
|
Salamandre said:
Also I hate the pack attitude, when I see 99% of people attacking on one, I always side withe that one. Sorry, this just lights something in my head, I can't do else.
mate believe me I am the same as you here, I also share a strong contrarian instinct like you to protect the underdog and believe me I am usually proud to exercise those compulsions,
however in some cases one must throw away the impulse to play the devil's advocate because sometimes the devil side is out of touch with reality and simply has no redeeming points whatsoever while the other is the side of basic reason and logic, if one tries to force equivalency between two positions when there is absolutely none it can become counterproductive and absurd lol
____________
|
|
Salamandre
Admirable
Omnipresent Hero
Wog refugee
|
|
posted June 05, 2017 11:10 PM |
|
|
Minion said:
@Salamandre. In 2015 China came in first for total kilotons of carbon dioxide emitted, yes. Per capita, however, the U.S. pumped out more CO2 than China and India combined in 2015. Check your facts.
If ranked per capita, Quatar and Trinidad produced 4 times the Co2 of USA, very insightful. They kill the planet, Quatar and Trinidad.
|
|
Minion
Legendary Hero
|
|
posted June 05, 2017 11:22 PM |
|
Edited by Minion at 23:23, 05 Jun 2017.
|
/facepalm.
You were comparing China, India and USA in your reply to me. Great work champ... 
|
|
Salamandre
Admirable
Omnipresent Hero
Wog refugee
|
|
posted June 05, 2017 11:30 PM |
|
|
|
no honey, I was making fun of you, as you desperately tried to find some online ranking where China isn't number one, just to contradict me. Then you came with this capita nonsense, where Trinidad is the greatest polluter of the planet (those latinos again), then ask me to check my facts. You're just fun.
|
|
Stevie
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted June 06, 2017 12:02 AM |
|
Edited by Stevie at 00:14, 06 Jun 2017.
|
I'm about to side with Salamandre on this one. It's not an instinct for the underdog, it's more like giving someone the benefit of a doubt, especially since I find Sal's arguments pretty reasonable.
Also, what does a rank per capita count anyway? It's irrelevant. If it's rank per capita, then the leading countries are Qatar, Kuwait and the United Arab Emirates, while their combined CO2 production amounts for less than 1% globally. Meanwhile, China alone produces almost 30% of the global amount by itself, double than that of the USA which is around 15%. You guys might want to get your numbers straight.
____________
Guide to a Great Heroes Game
The Young Traveler
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted June 06, 2017 12:27 AM |
|
|
Salamandre said:
Minion said:
@Salamandre. In 2015 China came in first for total kilotons of carbon dioxide emitted, yes. Per capita, however, the U.S. pumped out more CO2 than China and India combined in 2015. Check your facts.
If ranked per capita, Quatar and Trinidad produced 4 times the Co2 of USA, very insightful. They kill the planet, Quatar and Trinidad.
It's not about per capita. (Which is still not irrelevant since you can't expect a country of 200 million car using people to produce less pollution than one with a population of 15 million car using people while determining quotas.) You keep ignoring the statistics I linked, (which is an .edu link btw), they directly compare the contribution to global warming by measuring Fossil Fuel CO2, Land-use CO2, Methane Nitrous Oxide and Aerosols. The study is named "Ranking Global Warming Contributions by Country" ffs:
Now these are numbers from 2014 and I doubt they are completely reversed in favor of U.S. just in three years. Also once again:
The study also introduces an interesting idea of how to account for emissions. Currently, all GHG emissions are accounted for in the country in which they are produced. However, in manufacturing heavy countries such as China, many of the GHG emissions result from products that are shipped for consumption to developed countries. Therefore, if emission accounting were to be performed by consumption, the developed world would have an even larger share of GHG emissions and global warming contributions.
|
|
Minion
Legendary Hero
|
|
posted June 06, 2017 01:14 AM |
|
|
Salamandre said:
China and India are the two biggest world polluters
It is the exact same false fact that Trump said. Because you seem to parrot every word he says I asked you to check your facts, and god were you butthurt. Get over it. Honey 
And yes I added the per capita fact which although is not the whole truth on the matter is relevant to the discussion, even if you want to ignore it completely for your convenience.
|
| |
|
|
This Popular Thread is pages long: 
