BREAKING: U.S. O-U-T of Paris Climate Accord

a reply to: Aazadan

We're not having a global meltdown now.

700 ppm C02 will prove to be of great benefit.

originally posted by: D8Tee
a reply to: Aazadan

We're not having a global meltdown now.

700 ppm C02 will prove to be of great benefit.

Ocean acidificiation is a serious issue. Coal puts out more than just CO2.

originally posted by: Aazadan

originally posted by: D8Tee
a reply to: Aazadan

We're not having a global meltdown now.

700 ppm C02 will prove to be of great benefit.

Ocean acidificiation is a serious issue. Coal puts out more than just CO2.

What are you getting at? As far as I know they're not blaming H2S04 on ocean acidification but rather H2C03 ?

Since the environment can’t tell the difference between anthropogenic CO2 and non-anthropogenic CO2, all that matters is total CO2 levels. And total CO2 levels have been much much higher in the past.

a reply to: yuppa

You got a link to anything on that technology? I would love to read up on it.

The more technical, the better.

TheRedneck

a reply to: TheRedneck

News to me as well, have yet to come up to speed on this one.

Wikipedia link

If anyone but Goodenough published this, I would be, well, it’s hard to find a polite word.”

a reply to: Aazadan

Yes, and that's a major issue with coal. Gasification overcomes that by removing the impurities.



a reply to: D8Tee

As far as I know they're not blaming H2S04 on ocean acidification but rather H2C03 ?

'They' can blame carbonic acid till the cows come home... sulfuric acid is more potent and the sulfur output from poorly-developed fuel use correlates.

I will believe H2SO4 is the culprit until proven otherwise.

TheRedneck

a reply to: TheRedneck

Ocean acidification-the latest in a chain of scare campaigns. Once again, the “science” is a sham. Buffering capacity of basalt in particular is ignored. A doubling of atmospheric CO2 does not cause a doubling in ocean CO2. How convenient to conveniently forget the oceans contain 48x more CO2 than the atmosphere. The effects are out by over a full order of magnitude. The figures I have seen are totally fraudulent- .4 pH points for a doubling of CO2 concentration suggests a very high percentage of the CO2 becomes carbonic acid-remember, pH is logarithmic. To add to the fraud, doubling the atmospheric CO2 does not mean doubling ocean CO2-far from it. Double atmospheric CO2-even if all the extra dissolves in the oceans is only a 2% increase – hardly likely to do anything, certainly not dissolve the planet.

Once again, scare mongering LIES to dupe the science illiterate in to surrendering their freedoms. Really, how science illiterate can anyone be to believe the ocean acidification scare-of-the-day.

Once again, the UN are the ones plugging the lies. Wake up, the UN is a massive fraud-one of the grandest if not the grandest in history. “Above all else, appear respectable”- one of the mottoes of the Fabian Society, one of the instigators of the UN.

The EU is on full war mode against the USA. The delusional hallucinated EUro#ers still believe they run the world, and they will partially destroy governments.

Former Secretary of State John Kerry: (aka "Lurch", of the Adams Family)

""President Trump lied to all Americans when he promised to "Keep America First". By pulling out the Paris consortium, he's making America LAST!!""

Democrat leaders always think being "first" means being in the lead with handing out taxpayer dollars. A global sugar-daddy. Is this how they want to retake the Senate/House next year?

a reply to: D8Tee

That's exactly my point... Carbon dioxide simply cannot account for the observed acidification. That doesn't mean the ocean is not acidifying in areas (it is), only that the real culprit is not carbon dioxide.

It's sulfur dioxide.

TheRedneck

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: Quetzalcoatl14

Your point is apt: environmental sustainability is indeed akin to living within one's means economically. We agree on that.

But I must take issue with your assumption that 'conservatuves' (God, can we not get better descriptors?) are against environmental sustainability. I, for instance, simply see no benefit on tossing billions at an issue which is irrelevant.

Two people, each faced with identical prospects of purchasing rental property, might look at the proposal differently. One might say, "I can't afford to make the payments right now, so I'll pass." The other might say, "I am certain I can rent this property for enough to cover most or all of the payments, so I think I'll buy the property." Both are living within their means; both probably made a correct decision, but they chose different approaches to economic stability.

Imagine the eye rolls if people started berating one of them because of their decision! But that's what we get when talking climate.

TheRedneck

I mention conservatives because by percentage, more of them are against environmental regulation or sustainability principles.

Your analogy is off. In the case of two people deciding whether to rent/buy a property or not, their decision would not harm the other necessarily and especially, not harm society writ large.

Something again that many anti-environmentalists fail to get is that the environment is the commons, not their personal property. The commons, such as the air, climate, oceans, rivers, etc, affect everyone. Polluting in it or over-using it for profit isn't in a vacuum, it often reduces the quality of the environment for other people, or future generations. So this "i don't want to or I can't afford it calculus" can't fly.

Anything that affects other people negatively is not within one's "personal freedoms."

People fighting against environmental protection are actually harming society, other people. It's not a personal choice, it's a globalized one. When a large proportion of the population denies environmental issues and the need for sustainability, they aren't just "living within their means," they are degrading everyone's means, including that of future generations.

Whether an action should be taken, especially at a legal or regulatory level, is relative to the level of environmental risk or damage.

For years most companies have not been required to calculate nor pay for the social, economic, and environmental cost of their practices, the so-called "triple-bottom-line." This needs to change, including regarding climate.

The best argument I've heard agains the Paris agreement is that it wouldn't actually achieve these ends. I am more interested in exploring that.

originally posted by: whywhynot

originally posted by: ms898
a reply to: avgguy


It's a bad decision internationally because countries have lost faith with USAs word. If USA developes a reputation of not honouring promises why make a deal in the first place.

Apart from countries international businesses like stability.

Absolutely not true. Obama chose to not run this thru the Senate. If he had it then would be the word of the USA. If he had the next President couldn't just abandon it. But no, Obama gave his word and it was that word which was broken. Big surprise because Obama broke his word all the time.

These countries are sophisticated enough to know the difference between a formal treaty with the USA that was approved by the Senate and some bs agreement signed by the US President. They also knew, just as Obama knew, that he could never get such an agreement thru the Senate.

As you sow so shall you reap.

Interesting point, and a reasonable one, even though I'm for the agreement.

originally posted by: FauxMulder

originally posted by: OtherSideOfTheCoin

originally posted by: ms898
a reply to: avgguy


It's a bad decision internationally because countries have lost faith with USAs word. If USA developes a reputation of not honouring promises why make a deal in the first place.

Apart from countries international businesses like stability.

So true even if you ignore the impact on the global climate, this sends a message to the world that America no longer stands by its international commitments.

F### the rest of the world if we have to suffer economically to make them happy. Why does every deal have to hurt the US? What good is a climate deal that lets China continue to grow their polluting ways for 13 years but puts tough economic killing restrictions on the US? Like I said F them.

Except, the research and history show that the biggest polluters of all time include the US, Britain, Germany, etc, considering we industrialized way earlier than every other region.

Also, the argument runs at the UN or World Bank that because of this fact, AND that all countries have "the right to development," that there has to be help from already developed countries for developing countries, while collectively we try to protect the environment. If the developing countries aren't allowed to develop full bore like the already developed, then additional help has to be given such as through tech transfer, financing for development, etc. This is called "common but differentiated responsibilities" (CBDR).

It makes sense if you actually care and know the history of development and industrialization.

climatenexus.org...

originally posted by: o0oTOPCATo0o

originally posted by: StoutBroux
It's already been said that the agreement would do very little to affect climate change and in fact, other countries would be allowed to continue to increase avenues of energy that the US would not. Especially China who has surpassed our level of CO2 output, and India which is close behind, would continue to create unlimited new coal mines for years to come, with no restrictions. It was basically a false climate "pact" fund in which to pour billions of dollars only to shovel into the already wealthy's pockets, kind of like the UN. And similar to the UN, every 5 years, the 'fees' would increase and more and more money would be poured into a bottomless pit never to be seen again. Just another shell game. Trump is following through on his promise to keep jobs in America. BTW, even Rand Paul was 100% against the short sighted deal Obama signed through an EO. We can be responsible without paying billions to be responsible.

Holy crap!
Someone came in and explained something! I had to quote it in full in case anyone scrolled right past.
Let's see if it gets any attention, or if people keep arguing and being petty..

I have to read more on this topic, personally, but this is the best argument basically I've heard, that the agreement itself wouldn't effect the climate change reduction we are all arguing about anyways.

What is the evidence for this, that it wouldn't? Honest question.

As a liberal, and someone concerned about climate change (sustainability generally), can you point me to some solid resources as to the problems with the paris agreement? Honest request.

originally posted by: Damiel
a reply to: Deny Arrogance
It's sure good for the Chinese environement ;p
All those smelting and toxic acid releases go else where ...
elsewhere, like the states !

You mean like how we moved our industrial pollution to China in the 70's or 80's? You do know that many parts and products we used to produce are produced there now, and basically not only did the labor get outsourced but so did the pollution. For example, rare earth is used in Chinese factories to create magnetic parts for European wind turbines I believe, in the process creating a veritable lake of toxic waste.

www.bbc.com...

originally posted by: TruMcCarthy
Brilliant move by Trump! All of these "leaders" are upset because they can't take advantage of the United States anymore, it has absolutely nothing to do with global warming. Elitist global governance takes another hit!

I always love reading responses like this.

"Take advantage of?" Do you mean the fact that the US has intervened, regime changed, overthrown democracies and installed dictators in, bombed, invaded countless countries in the past 100 odd years? Like, historical facts?

I'd suggest hitting the books again.

nm

originally posted by: JAY1980

originally posted by: amazing
Maybe, but common sense would tell me that there must be a reason that almost 200 countries are in on this agreement?

Because most of those nations will be receiving funds from the west. They don't have to pay anything!

It can't all be a vast conspiracy. And two common sense would tell me to listen to the advice of scientists and not bloggers and the bloggers are telling me this is a scam and the scientists are telling me that man made global warming is a real thing that we need to do something about.

No? Yes?

No!
No one is saying climate change doesn't exist. People are skeptical about it being fixed via taxation and government regulations. Especially in this case. From what I gathered from the parts of the accord I read. It is designed to transfer wealth from poor people in rich nations, to rich people in poor nations. To impose more taxes on the average westerner and give it to 3rd world politicians to entice them to spend it on green enterprises. No thanks I have enough tax in my diet already.

See my post earlier about CBDR. It covers the why of providing aid to these countries on climate change and development.

The only way one can understand this judiciously is to have a knowledge of the history of the past 300 odd years, which countries industrialized (and polluted) first, and what help will be required if we don't want every developing country to take the same environment destroying path, like we and Europe did.

This is balanced with the "right to development," also part of treaties and UN/international organization principles.

www.britannica.com...

a reply to: Quetzalcoatl14

How far do you take that?

When you clicked "reply," did that slow my Internet access down by 0.0001s? Quite possibly.

When you drive a car, the demand for gasoline you create raises my cost.

Have you ever bought the last can of something in a grocery store? You realize that impacted the ability of the next customer to buy it, right?

Point is, everything we do, every move we make affects someone else in some way. Even if that effect is too small to be measured, it is there. How far do we go?

People fighting against environmental protection are actually harming society, other people.

Only if those regulations are appropriate. Otherwise, those fighting for inappropriate regulations are unnecessarily restricting the freedom of others.

Carbon dioxide is not a pollutant. If it didn't exist, neither would life on the planet. It does not exist, even with the admitted increase over the last century, in sufficient levels to cause health concerns nor does it exist in sufficient levels to create the warming effect that is touted as fact but only dubiously proven.

There are thousands of actual pollutants being pumped into our atmosphere, and on those I will agree with you. But not on carbon dioxide.

Whether an action should be taken, especially at a legal or regulatory level, is relative to the level of environmental risk or damage.

Agreed. And since carbon dioxide poses no real risk to the environment at anywhere near current levels, any action to eliminate it (a physical impossibility, btw... unless you expect people to stop breathing) is not worth pursuing and certainly not worth $3B.

The best argument I've heard agains the Paris agreement is that it wouldn't actually achieve these ends. I am more interested in exploring that.

Really, that is the crux of the entire argument. The Paris Accord focuses on carbon dioxide, which is not the cause of the ills it claims to mitigate, and ignores much more pressing environmental matters. If I thought the situation was as desperate as some like to claim it is, I would be all for pumping tax money into it. But it won't work. Not only are its efforts unfair and inadequate, they're not even directed at the real problems!

TheRedneck