The US Can't Leave The Paris Climate Deal Until 2020 (nytimes.com) 403
An anonymous reader quotes the New York Times:
Last week, President Trump announced that the United States would withdraw from the Paris climate agreement. But it will take more than one speech to pull out: Under the rules of the deal, which the White House says it will follow, the earliest any country can leave is November 4, 2020. That means the United States will remain a party to the accord for nearly all of Mr. Trump's current term... Nov. 4, 2019 is the earliest date that the United States can submit a written notice to the United Nations that it is withdrawing from the Paris deal -- exactly three years after it came into force. As soon as that happens, the United States can leave the accord in exactly one year... If a new president enters the White House on Jan. 20, 2021, he or she could easily submit a written notice to the United Nations that the United States would like to rejoin the Paris accord. Within 30 days, the United States could re-enter the agreement and submit a new pledge for how the country plans to tackle climate change.
The article also acknowledges "a growing coalition of states, cities and companies that are pledging to do as much as they can to meet the United States' climate goals on their own."
The article also acknowledges "a growing coalition of states, cities and companies that are pledging to do as much as they can to meet the United States' climate goals on their own."
Woopie (Score:2)
Let me get this straight... It's a non-binding accord (other than we can't leave until 4 Nov 2019). So nothing changes.
Re:Woopie (Score:5, Informative)
Let me get this straight... It's a non-binding accord (other than we can't leave until 4 Nov 2019). So nothing changes.
Correct. This is just political mastrubation.
Meanwhile, scientists and engineers are busy working on better solar panels, more efficient wind turbines, biofuels, battery tech, integrated grids, carbon sequestration, etc. Stuff that actually matters.
Nerds will save the world, not politicians.
Re: Woopie (Score:3)
Amen brother, totally correct. Laws do not create better technology...
Re: Woopie (Score:3)
I suppose we could do nothing different, but I'm not sure how that helps.
Re:Nerds provide the tools (Score:5, Informative)
Re: Nerds provide the tools (Score:3)
Actually it's a good thing because carbon credits are exactly that, credits you can exchange for carbon fuels. The goal was to have richer nation pay for renewables and the money they save on carbon fuels would go to poor nations so they can better themselves by paying for the cheaper carbon fuels and get themselves (hopefully) out of poverty, just like previous aid to Africa has helped them not be part of the third world anymore.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
the US, China, and India (the latter two aren't even going to start their work until after 2020 anyway)
Actually, China has gotten very serious about the issue and is on track to be well ahead of its commitments by 2020. In January China announced that it is investing $360B in domestic low- or no-carbon power generation (wind, solar, hydro and nuclear), to be installed by 2020. China has already cut its consumption of coal sharply, and is on track to keep cutting it further. China is also investing heavily (about $1T over the next few years) in green energy production around the world. Much of that money coun
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Nerds provide the tools (Score:2)
My last Accord was stolen. I never did get it back.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Nerds provide the tools (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
EFI did 90% of that. It was developed for racing.
Re: (Score:3)
There are countries that will continue to fund those efforts and there are countries that won't.
Most of these efforts are being funded by profit-seeking capitalists, not "countries".
Build a better battery, and the world will beat a path to your door.
Re:Woopie (Score:5, Interesting)
>"Most of these efforts are being funded by profit-seeking capitalists, not "countries".Build a better battery, and the world will beat a path to your door."
Exactly. There are many, many millions of Americans, regardless of political party, who are itching to jump on clean, affordable, efficient products. Look at LED bulbs as a perfect example. We didn't need legislation or mandates or public service messages. We just needed a good product and some time. After several years, they are taking over and flying off the shelves.
Next up, electric cars- who doesn't want a powerful, quiet, efficient, vehicle with a fraction of the moving parts and things to fail? The private solar panel industry is just exploding now. People can't get enough!
And who in the USA doesn't want the country to be energy-independent?
Artificially trying to force things down people's throats is nowhere near as effective as education and motivation followed by real products people can buy.
Re: (Score:3)
I thought USA introduced "Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007", the "Incandescent ban". While Compact Fluorescent meet the requirements (along with halogen), good manufacturers had given way to cheap Chinese CFL manufacturers, which people bought because they were cheap, then complained when they wouldn't work upside down in enclosed dimmer fixtures. As well concerns over mercury waste gives LED an advantage.
Right now LED still seems to be in the realm of quality manufacturers, though I'm sure chea
Re:Woopie (Score:4, Insightful)
You are correct that there were some incentives placed. But the real driver was the availability of something that worked and could pay for itself in energy savings. Once the public was offered products that produced acceptable quality light (good color, no strobing, good distribution), in a compatible package, at an affordable price, it was easy to make the switch through just education about the higher price of the bulb paying for itself.
The same thing will happen in other markets.
Another example- recycling. Many (including me) recycled, even when it meant separating things and hauling an inconvenient tub to the road every few weeks. But once the separation technology improved and it could be done centrally, large bins were made available just like regular trash bins. Regular pickup with no silly separating of the items into various sub-bins, and voila! No need for regulations or laws FORCING people to recycle- it just happened naturally. In my neighborhood (which is by no means liberal nor rich) recycling went from perhaps 20% to perhaps 90% in just a few years.
Re: (Score:2)
>"So how are they forcing it down your throat, dickwad?"
Sorry, I don't respond to anonymous name throwers (other than to point out what they are). Grow up
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I think you mean the CITIZENRY. Paying taxes has no bearing on your ability to participate in governance. NEVER EVER refer to the citizenry as taxpayers, it shows that you only think of them as purses.
Re: (Score:3)
So? We still do SBIR, STTR, and research grants. (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Let me get this straight... It's a non-binding accord (other than we can't leave until 4 Nov 2019). So nothing changes.
An argument can be made that, if we can't leave the Paris Agreement for four years, that's binding on the US -- and if it's binding on the US, that means it's a treaty, which has to be ratified by the Senate, which it never was. So the provisions of the Paris Agreement, including the conditions on exit, are of no effect.
Re: (Score:3)
Actually no. It's pretty easy to understand that countries can't be trusted if the treaties made by one of the temporary wearer of the big hats won't be upheld by the next one, especially when they come as quickly as every 4 years, and in this country never lasts more than 8 under any circumstances. Whether you like it or not, it's the duty of the POTUS to uphold our treaties and agreements, even if he personally doesn't like them. If he has the power to voluntarily dismiss them, he has to do it by the means allowed for in the agreement. If he doesn't like that, he can bite off his own dick for all that matters, assuming he can find it.
POTUS does not get to pass treaties for the USA; only Congress can do that. POTUS negotiates them but Congress authorizes them. The Paris Accord was never passed by Congress. It was only negotiated by the former POTUS administration. Therefore the USA is not actually a legal party to the Paris Accord and therefore can completely ignore it. That is, after all, how the Constitution defines the Treatise process for the USA.
It's not legally binding (Score:5, Informative)
Since the Paris deal was never submitted to the Senate for confirmation, it is not a legally binding treaty, only a verbal agreement by Obama.
I am not arguing for or against the climate deal, just pointing out a simple fact of US law.
Citation: US Constitution Article II, Section 2, Clause 2 of the United States Constitution, includes the Treaty Clause, which empowers the president of the United States to propose and chiefly negotiate agreements, which must be confirmed by the Senate, between the United States and other countries, which become treaties between the United ..
Re:It's not legally binding (Score:4, Funny)
Since the Paris deal was never submitted to the Senate for confirmation, it is not a legally binding treaty, only a verbal agreement by Obama.
Shut up, Trump doesn't know that! ;)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
So you are applying your idiot thinking on him
No, dum dum, I was making a joke.
Re: (Score:2)
I am going to go out on a limb here and say you replied to the wrong post. mindbuilder is a decent fellow.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:It's not legally binding (Score:4, Interesting)
Same swamp, different day.
Not even remotely true (Score:5, Informative)
Since the Paris deal was never submitted to the Senate for confirmation, it is not a legally binding treaty, only a verbal agreement by Obama.
I am not arguing for or against the climate deal, just pointing out a simple fact of US law.
Citation: US Constitution Article II, Section 2, Clause 2 of the United States Constitution, includes the Treaty Clause, which empowers the president of the United States to propose and chiefly negotiate agreements, which must be confirmed by the Senate, between the United States and other countries, which become treaties between the United ..
That's not even remotely true.
The Paris deal isn't a treaty, it's an "accord". Because that's different, it can be agreed to by the president without any buy-in from the legislature. It comes under the "umbrella" treaty agreement the US has with the UN which *was* ratified by congress.
And if you disagree, note that Obama actually taught constitutional law at college, and no one disagreed with the action at the time - no one in the legislature brought the issue or the supreme court, no group in the US sued the government and pushed it to the supreme court.
I don't know where people get these ideas from. A plain-text reading of the constitution does not always convey the complexity and intricacies of the underlying law.
Re: (Score:3)
The Paris deal isn't a treaty, it's an "accord".
And I understand that the main reason it was never a treaty was exactly this: The US gov't would never have got it through the coal-industry, sorry, Republican-controlled congress.
Re: (Score:2)
And if you disagree, note that Obama actually taught constitutional law at college,
I had 'Associate Professors' like Obama when I was in College. I assume a lot of us have had that experience.
Re: (Score:2)
You're literally just repeating exactly what he said in different language. Since the Paris accord never passed through the Congress or Senate, it was an agreement made by the president alone under his existing authority and lacks any of the force of law. Basically, Obama just agreed to do something he could have already done. Trump has no obligation to follow it at all, and could pull the US out of it today.
Re: (Score:2)
if it walks like a duck.....
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
And the president can also choose not to do anything about its implementation since it's all voluntary anyway, and since there are no penalties.
Push that narrative far enough and the US will simply leave the treaty entirely.
Re:It's not legally binding (Score:5, Interesting)
Since the Paris deal was never submitted to the Senate for confirmation, it is not a legally binding treaty, only a verbal agreement by Obama.
The Paris Agreement was adopted as part of the UNFCCC [wikipedia.org] (United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change), which IS a treaty the U.S. adopted in 1992 [congress.gov].
Most of the legally binding aspects of the Paris accord, which include stuff like ongoing monitoring of climate change, reports to the international organization, etc. were part of that original treaty.
Where you're sort of right is that just about all the rest of the Paris agreement was set VOLUNTARILY by each country, including specific actions to mitigate emissions, goal levels for each country, etc. While it would be against the spirit of the Paris agreement, there's absolutely nothing in that agreement that prevents the U.S. from unilaterally lowering its own goals (which the U.S. set itself).
There is disagreement on this point, but a number of U.S. officials who actually were involved with the drafting and negotiation of the original Paris agreement have gone on the record to state the U.S. could "backslide" on its goals. They say that specific language was originally considered that would prevent "backsliding," but it was removed from the final version of the agreement. Obviously there would likely be diplomatic backlash if the U.S. lowers its goals, but not likely worse than what it will experience by backing out entirely.
Which makes Trump's claims all the more mystifying. Especially about his claims that maybe the U.S. could "get a better deal." The U.S. DETERMINED the "deal." It could change its own terms. About the only thing required by the deal that the U.S. would be legally obligated to in the future would be ongoing monitoring and reports on emissions, which (as I said) was basically already part of the original Senate-approved treaty in 1992.
The ONLY reason to withdraw completely is to attempt to send a message that climate change isn't real and thus the entire exercise of the agreement is invalid. But all the rhetoric about "getting a better deal" is complete and utter balderdash.
Re:It's not legally binding (Score:5, Informative)
The Paris Accord was a 2015 modification to that Treaty. Modification to the treaty or accord requires Senate approval. No such approval was obtained. As such, the USA was never part of the Paris Accord.
Sorry to burst your bubble, but the whole point of the UNFCCC treaty was to create a "framework" (it's in the name) for future climate agreements.
The Paris Agreement was specifically designed to be "voluntary" in many of its requirements to avoid the legal issues that plagued the Kyoto Accord back in the 1990s. The Kyoto Accord *did* place legally binding restrictions on climate actions to be taken by the U.S., and as such, it required Senate confirmation (where it was rejected).
Executive Agreements do not necessarily require [stackexchange.com] reconfirmation of the Senate when they are implementing a treaty already approved by the Senate. Specifically, if they do not modify existing domestic laws, executive agreements generally don't require Senate confirmation. (Note that Executive Agreements are not uncommon -- the U.S. has engaged in over 18,000 of them, some dating back to the early days of the country, compared to only a bit over 1,000 treaties.) As I understand it, the Obama administration intended to enforce its contribution to the agreement through existing federal statutes and regulations (like the Clean Air Act), so no changes to domestic laws would be necessary beyond what was already achieved in the UNFCCC treaty.
Note, of course, that an Executive Agreement is less binding than a treaty, so there's no question that Trump has the authority to unilaterally withdraw from it, though doing so without following the terms of withdrawal in the agreement would be a diplomatic disaster that would undermine U.S. authority in international negotiations.
Re: (Score:3)
The UNFCCC was used as a basis for the Paris Accord, but it is not the same treaty, nor is the Paris Accord actually part of the UNFCCC.
The Paris Agreement was explicitly adopted as an "annex" to the UNFCCC. See the text of the agreement [unfccc.int] (from p. 2):
I. Adoption. 1. Decides to adopt the Paris Agreement under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (hereinafter referred to as "the Agreement") as contained in the annex...
The formal "annex" begins on p. 20 of the link. Let's see what else you have.
The US has never ratified the Paris Accord, in any way, and is not currently a member of it. It cannot 'withdraw' because it was never a part in the first place.
Again, nope. Note further the stipulations from the original UNFCCC treaty [unfccc.int] for annexes (Section 16):
3.
Re: (Score:3)
The situation is actually much more complex than you seem to think. Sure, as matter of US law, the accord is not technically a "treaty", and therefore the President can give it the old heave ho. But as a matter international law...
Well, let's start there. Calling international law "law" is misleading. It's not law in the sense of state and federal law, where there is an authority with overwhelming power who compels obedience. International law is more like politics, or norms of behavior.
There is no powe
Re: (Score:2)
Climate change is real. Whether it's something to worry about is another question.
One thing that's crystal clear, however, is that the Paris agreement is not just useless but harmful.
Re: (Score:2)
In fact, you don't know. You're taking it on faith. Others choose not to.
Others choose not to, based on faith, or because they have studied the models in detail ?
Re: (Score:2)
Explain and name the single model parameter that is responsible for 90% of the variation in model results?
I can, can you?
Re: (Score:2)
I wasn't talking about me or you, but about "others". How many of them have studied the models in detail ?
Re: (Score:2)
Any 'competent modeler' can get the model to tell him/her anything he/she wants.
That's the definition of 'competent modeler'.
Re: (Score:2)
Still not answering the question, I see.
Re: (Score:2)
Others choose not to, based on faith, or because they have studied the models in detail ?
It's "a leap of faith" not an accident of faith.
Not believing people who are trying to sell you something is a basic survival skill. It doesn't require belief in some sort of alternative.
In other words, it can be just "no". It doesn't have to be "no, because I have faith the future will be specifically X instead of the specific Y future you have predicted".
Re: (Score:2)
Not believing people who are trying to sell you something is a basic survival skill.
There are plenty of people trying to sell the idea that AGW isn't happening.
Re: (Score:2)
There are plenty of people trying to sell the idea that AGW isn't happening.
But they don't ask or demand any money from me. Nor are they telling me I must live my life according to their faith's proscriptions.
And even with that, I don't really believe them either.
Re: (Score:2)
Don't you have a car? What do you buy to make it go, who sells it to you and which side of the "debate" are they on?
Re: (Score:3)
Don't you have a car? What do you buy to make it go, who sells it to you and which side of the "debate" are they on?
Gasoline makes a car go. What's your point? It's not a philosophy. I don't buy it because I believe in someone's worldview, I buy it because it beats walking.
The groupthink is so strong that you guys can't even make coherent arguments.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You're taking it on faith. Others choose not to
No, they instead take it on faith that it doesn't exist. There is no science disproving the "faith-based" climate change. So those opposing it have faith without evidence.
Re: (Score:2)
You don't have to conclusively disprove something in order to not believe it.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I don't believe you can fit 10,000 people and an elephant in your bedroom no matter what your computer model say .
Re: (Score:2)
You could just look at the temperature trend for the last 50 years. That doesn't require faith in models, groupthink, nor appeal to authority. http://www.woodfortrees.org/pl... [woodfortrees.org]
Re: (Score:2)
You could just look at the temperature trend for the last 50 years.
And then what? Because if the answer isn't "buy into a specific predicted future scenario", then why am I looking?
Re: (Score:3)
This sort of thinking means that anything that you can't understand must be dismissed
Predictions of the distant future are like that. There should be a super high bar for believing them. Because they tend to be wrong.
Anyone who has spent their lives studying something highly complicated is disallowed
No, you go ahead and believe their predictions if you want.
Especially when you don't have the skills to debunk their work.
No need to "debunk" predictions of the future. They either come true or not.
And *especially* when the fate of humanity is at stake.
The only thing less believable than a prediction of the distant future is a dramatic prediction of the distant future.
The entire thing was symbolic anyway (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Meanwhile, everything that's already being done to develop new and more efficient, cleaner technologies will continue to happen anyway. The Paris agreement was just Obama genuflecting in an
Re: (Score:2)
The Accord itself was the kind of sausage that gets made when sausage makers from all over the world convene.
Only an idiot would stand there, grinning, with a bun and mustard ready at hand.
Huh? (Score:2)
Why is it that a US Politician doing something which favors the US is giving a "middle finger" to the world? India stating in that same accord that they would not take any action until they received $2 Trillion dollars was not a middle finger to the world? The majority of countries not having to take any action yet receiving US Tax payer dollars in "aid" is not a middle finger to the rest of the world?
Sorry, but this was an anti-US agreement. Obama did a whole lot of those, and had no problem telling the
Re: (Score:2)
>"Sorry, but this was an anti-US agreement. Obama did a whole lot of those, and had no problem telling the world how he felt about the US, so that should not be a surprise.Read the damn thing! Pulling out is Pro-American. Being willing to negotiate a fair treaty, as the Trump administration said they would attempt to do immediately..."
Here we go again, someone trying to be logical with the ultra-liberal progressive-religious out there. Haven't you learned yet that nothing Trump does could possibly be go
Re: (Score:2)
I honestly have no idea why anyone was ever in favor of the Paris agreement.
It's a religion.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
No, just an ordinary religion.
Re: (Score:2)
Are you asking me? Either way, I don't care about your silly, jokey nonsense.
Re: (Score:2)
No. I don't know if you guys are trolling or what. If you're not, your silly exaggerations are counterproductive.
Re:Not *entirely* symbolic (Score:5, Informative)
(And the US is already one of the least polluting nation
I keep hearing that we are one of the worst, or at least the worst per-capita. But maybe that depends on how you define pollution. In regards to the Paris agreement, CO2 is the relevant pollutant. The EPA claims that we are second to China [epa.gov] which probably matches the worst per-capita statement, since we have a way lower population than China. Wikipedia has some good charts too. [wikipedia.org]
Re:Not *entirely* symbolic (Score:5, Informative)
(And the US is already one of the least polluting nations
Not according to wikipedia [wikipedia.org]. You're #2 in absolute emissions and #7 per capita. The U.S. produces over 14% of the world's total emissions.
Re: (Score:2)
Not *entirely*... it also requires developed nations to give $100 billion annually to the less-developed nations.
Really. The agreement has no enforceable requirements,
Well if it's not enforceable it's not really a requirement then is it?
the goals are paltry and minor, and yet sends $100 billion to undeveloped nations to waste on corruption.
The money is so they can invest in green tech so they don't have to pollute as much when they grow their economies.
And if they're just wasting the money on corruption we stop sending it.
And the US is already one of the least polluting nations
WTF [wikipedia.org]?
I honestly have no idea why anyone was ever in favor of the Paris agreement.
Because you're living in another reality. It actually makes a lot of sense in this one.
Re: (Score:3)
it also requires developed nations to give $100 billion annually to the less-developed nations.
To be clear, yet again, all country contributions to this are voluntary. Obama committed the U.S. to $3 billion. (Not $3 billion/year -- $3 billion TOTAL, of which $1 billion has already been contributed.) There is no requirement for the U.S. to contribute more than that, unless it voluntarily says it will.
And the US is already one of the least polluting nations,
Sorry, but this is just absolute nonsense. Among developed nations, the U.S. emits more CO2 per capita that any country other than Luxembourg. It's emits roughly double the amount per capita compared
Re: Not *entirely* symbolic (Score:3)
Our per capita pollution levels are the highest in the world. Don't be an idiot.
Re: (Score:3)
People are in favour of it because the see that countries like China and India are taking it seriously and exceeding their goals by considerable margins.
The US is the only big polluter that doesn't want to clean up.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
"Carbon-based components of fuels". My oh my, what a clever choice of words.
CO2 has the properties it has, and belching large amounts of it into the atmosphere is going to increase the amount of solar radiation absorbed in the lower atmosphere and the amount of CO2 absorbed into the oceans, both of which is very bad, and going to get worse. We should be doing everything possible to minimize and eventually eliminate the burning of hydrocarbons, not trying to find new and clever weasel words to disguise the d
Re: (Score:2)
Why would believability be contingent on what environmental activists say or do?
Re: (Score:2)
The 4 billion year history of Earth cannot be used to determine what the effects on 10,000 year old history of human civilization can tolerate. I have to believe you're just repeating some moronic meme you heard, and are not in fact a fucking moron yourself.
The level of CO2 in the atmosphere during the Jurassic means fuck all for the tolerable levels of CO2 for human civilization.
Re: (Score:2)
Oh, the Earth will be fine. And life will have no problem adapting. It was never the question.
The question, is how we humans will deal with it.
Humanity as a specie is not really in danger but the consequences will be... inconfortable and expensive. Maybe comparable to a world war, but without the economic boom that follows.
Re: (Score:2)
And long past due. If the rest of the world wants a deal, start by offering something that benefits the US.
I didn't know that the US has it's own planet. If they shared the same planet as say, India and China, the benefit of the US from this accord would be the fact that India and China (and other countries) redue they pollution which will have positive effects for the whole world.
It's all voluntary (Score:3)
None of the terms are binding. So while we technically we might still have to be part of it until 2020, if we decide to throw it out, we can just start ignoring totally now.
The takeaway... (Score:2)
Much ado about a non-binding "agreement" treaty (Score:5, Insightful)
If it's so much of a nothingburger where the US pays and developing nations don't, why bother trying to stay in? As for the states and other entities wishing to bankrupt themselves into compliance, that's on them.
It'd be more credible if it was an actual treaty and developing nations actually did more than face-saving gestures.
Re: (Score:3)
It'd be more credible if it was an actual treaty and developing nations actually did more than face-saving gestures.
Many have committed to more than "face-saving gestures."
The whole point of Paris was to avoid the diplomatic debacle of Kyoto. Trying to negotiate all sorts of "hard" details in a binding treaty just meant that a lot of countries tried to keep the standards as low as possible, and some countries (e.g., the U.S.) just refused to sign entirely.
Nobody ever thought the Paris agreement was great. But the idea was at least to get as many nations as possible "at the negotiating table" to (1) acknowledge that
NYT is Wrong - Withdraw from the UNFCCC (Score:4, Insightful)
/Paris/ is an accord of the UNFCCC. The USA can withdraw from the UNFCCC one year after giving its notice.
They talked about this recently on Science Friday, but here's an article with quite a bit of detail:
http://www.heritage.org/enviro... [heritage.org]
Wrong headline (Score:2)
US is choosing to leave in 2020. It does not need to follow any rules in the accord.
The Senate never ratified it... (Score:3)
... So we never entered into it in the first place.
Presidential agreements are not binding on future administrations.
https://www.washingtonpost.com... [washingtonpost.com]
Re: International Laughing Stock (Score:3, Insightful)
Huh...
1) I believe the science is valid and that AGW is a problem.
C) I dislike Trump, a great deal.
VIII) I have no problems with us withdrawing from the accord, States and businesses are picking up the slack, or so it appears.
So, frankly, I don't much care that you don't like Trump. I don't like him either. Now, put on your big boy pants and go find a way to be nicer to Mother Nature. It'd be far more productive for you to help than it is for you to sit and complain.
Re: International Laughing Stock (Score:4)
Now, put on your big boy pants and go find a way to be nicer to Mother Nature. It'd be far more productive for you to help than it is for you to sit and complain.
You don't think someone could do both ?
Re: (Score:2)
To speak directly to your account name: Yes, 'Visualize Whirled Peas' if you wish, but we don't care nor do we need to hear about your virtue signaling.
Wrong on both accounts, but keep going.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, they supplied most of our breeding stock, financed the initial exploration and development (and plundering and genocide) for our country, and have provided cheap labor to generate all the goods that we haven't built here for the last 40 years.
Re: (Score:2)
Europe has been engaging in an orgy of war, destruction, oppression, and genocide for centuries. And you're right that European elites financed the plundering and genocide of peoples around the world. The people who actually came to the US and settled it were trying to get away from all that.
That's why it's utterly foolish for anybody in the world to give a hoot about
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The irony here is that many corporations, even some of the major fossil fuel companies, actually want the US to remain in the Accord, as much as anything because they fear that China and Europe are going to use US's exit as a stick to beat the US with, and create any number of disadvantages for US products.
While the US remains in the Accord, it has some means to shape it. The money being laid is the price one pays for admission. But outside of the Accord, by and large the US will, through commercial and loc
Re: (Score:2)
The big Globalist energy corporations want to remain players on the Globalist stage. However, alliances are crumbling worldwide.
And all this focus on the 'dying coal industry'?? You globalists are the only ones ranting about that. Meanwhile, the US ships barges full of coal to China every month. When China isn't buying their coal from North Korea, of course.
It's okay. We know that Big Oil can save us if we just agree with the globalist pacts.
Re: (Score:3)
I read this interesting article about how conspiracy theorists tend to be narcissists. I'm beginning to suspect it's true.
Re: (Score:2)
So you're saying that leaving the accord not only saves tax payer money, it also means that the US government will be more limited in engaging in crony capitalism on behalf of big corporations?
I think you're beginning to figure out why people wanted
Re: (Score:2)