Lets talk about recent things

There seem to be a large part of this forum to drown in yucky name-calling, and pointing fingers at some other political opinions.

But there are some topics which did not make a "blip" on my ATS-radar recently, and maybe because they were just overlooked.
Or nobody wanted to seem them mentioned here.
Or they just didn't fit the theme.
Or they were just coming up in non-USA-based medias, I don't know.

Okay, lets go:

- California starts its own climate politic by joining a pact of environment protection.. with CHINA.

- several other federal US-states, even cities start doing about the same (just without China, as of now).

- Trump says that Qatar is the best (14 days ago). Last evening it was (shortly) the worst. Now, he seems to have reached equilibrium or something.. What do you call a person who has a loud opinion and changes it later to go conform with his best buddies (foreign minister et. al.)?

- Trump even "claimed credit for Qatar's isolation"?! Did he finally get enough shiny presents from Saudi-Arabia? Well, what about that large US-military base in Qatar?

- Theresa May seems ready to drastically change some human rights. There is no magic money tree there, but there seems to be even no more human-rights bushes around, eh?

Yep. The craziness of the political elite trying to tear this country apart in their magnificent temper tantrum is letting all kinds of shenanigans happen.

It's the most disgusting thing I've ever seen, and it's all because people didn't vote right.

Parts of the country are in outright rebellion, but they more or less have been for years now under the implicit sanction of the government. This is what happens when you get leadership that says enforce the laws I want and ignore the ones I don't like.

Not to mention, when it comes to the Paris Agreement, it's all so much hot air anyhow.
There is no real concrete way forward in reducing emissions that will actually work under the agreement.

The agreement allows for a range of ways that countries propose to limit their emissions, but due to the way it's structured, none of them are very good. For example, how you do estimate economic growth at all accurately?

The new study confirms this finding. It shows in a quantitative way that in order to keep warming to below 2°C, countries should either increase the stringency of their NDCs by 2030 or consider scaling up their ambition after 2030 by a factor 4 to 25. If the ambition of NDCs is not further increased by 2030, the study finds no pathways for returning warming to 1.5°C by the end of the century.

So more or less, Paris is a gross estimation of what would actually be needed in terms of setting hard targets. It's just a giant money laundering scheme.

a reply to: ketsuko

Yes, and all of those limitations to the Paris Treaty are there thanks to the USA.

originally posted by: ManFromEurope
a reply to: ketsuko

Yes, and all of those limitations to the Paris Treaty are there thanks to the USA.

Well that's the previous admin's deal. I am still allowed to blame Obama, right?

Except, he never followed the proper procedure for ratifying the agreement, so we aren't bound by it. At least, if there was an official Senate vote where it was ratified, I missed that news. He simply said, "There. It is done and we're in." which is not legal procedure.

And I think under normal circumstances, Cali would end up in hot water for negotiating its own treaty with a foreign power like that, but as I said, the political elite are busy punishing the rest of the country because we voted wrong. It's disgusting.

I am no Trump fan, but this should open eyes as to what the true agenda of DC, on both sides, is. You do it their way, or you go eff your self. Don't even dare think you can send someone they don't anoint to sit in the high seat.

A bunch of dancing OP there, only to ultimately rag on Trump.

a reply to: ketsuko

It's all hot air. At it's heart, its about giving money (100 billion worth) to other countries to "switch" from fossil fuels (if i'm sitting on nat gas, that's what i'll use) to "eco-friendly" sources of power.

And those oh so delicious carbon credits.

originally posted by: cenpuppie
a reply to: ketsuko

It's all hot air. At it's heart, its about giving money (100 billion worth) to other countries to "switch" from fossil fuels (if i'm sitting on nat gas, that's what i'll use) to "eco-friendly" sources of power.

And those oh so delicious carbon credits.

More cynically, it's about taking from the richer nations to give to the poorer ones. I rather doubt they'll actually start using green energy with that cash.

a reply to: ketsuko

More cynically, it's about taking from the richer nations to give to the poorer ones. I rather doubt they'll actually start using green energy with that cash.

That's already being done, heh heh.

I see it as a way to funnel away more tax payer money to those already eating at the top. Think Obama and Solara.

Some countries would use any funds, mainly those that have to import fossil fuels for electricity. Other countries, who are sitting on a ton of energy, why bother? Use what you got first, then diversify as needed.

a reply to: ManFromEurope

- yes
- yes
- yes, the Beheaded Leader in charge?
- yes and yes. That base is in Saudi Arabia next, which is even better
- yes. Let's smoke the rest now, eh?

But... but... but... we don't wanna talk about that here on ATS. Cuz... resaons.

07-03-17: Chris Christie enjoys a state beach he closed to the public

06/30/2017: Science Division of White House office is now empty as last staffers depart

But that does not matter anymore, as The US-goverment is removing scientific data from the internet RIGHT NOW

07/03/2017: Buzz Aldrin is listening to Pres. Trump who speaks about "sending an American to the Mars" under Trumps presidency

Money quote:

COLONEL ALDRIN: Infinity and beyond. (Laughter.)

THE PRESIDENT: This is infinity here. It could be infinity. We don’t really don’t know. But it could be. It has to be something -- but it could be infinity, right?

Source

07/13/2017: House Democrat introduces article of impeachment against Trump

"Rep. Brad Sherman, D-Calif., on Wednesday introduced an article of impeachment accusing President Trump of obstruction of justice and alleging that he interfered with the ongoing federal investigation into Russia's meddling in the 2016 election."

07/18/2017: Trump recertifies Iran Nuclear Deal, but only reluctanly

07/18/2017: You want to speak to Trump? Use some TV appearance, even if you are on his closest team

You might get fired, but otherwise he will ignore you. You are not his Son-in-Law, Bannon or Alex Jones.

07/18/2017: Trump says he has signed more bills than any other president, ever. He hasn't

Also: he doesn't like Pinocchio(s).

07/19/2017: As Paperwork Goes Missing, Private Student Loan Debts May Be Wiped Away

Wasn't there a similar problem with banks, invalid foreclosures and such because the mortgage-documents were sold so often in bundles that they simply couldn't be found anymore?

07/31/2017: Kushner to Interns: Trump Team Too Disorganized to Collude With Russia

“They thought we colluded, but we couldn’t even collude with our local offices,” Kushner told congressional interns during a private talk at the Capitol Visitor Center in Washington on Monday afternoon.
(..)
Kushner also downplayed his failure to report more than a hundred instances of foreign travel and contacts with foreign officials on his security clearance forms, which he updated twice to include meetings with Russian officials. “There are 127 pages on the SF-86, but there are only two you guys have to worry about,” he said. “Make sure you guys keep track of where you travel.”

COMPETENCE! THE BESTEST COMPETENTEST PEOPLE YOU COULD FIND!

08/01/2017: Boy Scouts 'Unaware' of Call Trump Said He Received From Organization Praising Jamboree Speech

What a narcissist! Whatever, just another day in trumpmania.