This is why Trump rightfully got the US out of Paris Climate Accord

[murox]

For the 9th time since 2000, the US was the leader in reduction of CO2 emissions. But in the Paris Climate Agreement, the US was the country punished the most, while some of the most egregious offenders were allowed to continue polluting.

http://www.aei.org/publication/char...sions-in-the-world-for-9th-time-this-century/

 

[raleighherdfan]

“But, but, but....”

In 3...2...1

 

[big_country90]

Yep...it was a stupid agreement and anybody who can think logically knows that getting out of this was a good thing.

 

[mlblack16.]

but, but, but.... Obama was getting us out of this years ago

amirite Greed?

 

[countryroads89]

The US joins Nicaragua and Syria as the only countries not participating. We’re in good company.

Yay!

 

[murox]

The US joins Nicaragua and Syria as the only countries not participating. We’re in good company.

Yay!

The US is leading the world in greenhouse gas emission reduction. What more would you like for us to do? Should we pay China and India to pollute more?

Thanks for reminding everyone that the left is about intentions and not results.

 

[countryroads89]

What more would you like for us to do?.

Stay in the agreement to hold China and India’s (the two leading polluters) feet to the fire.

 

[WV-FAN]

Stay in the agreement to hold China and India’s (the two leading polluters) feet to the fire.

LOL LMAO GTFO because that's obviously been working LOL LMAO GTFO

 

[ohio herd]

Stay in the agreement to hold China and India’s (the two leading polluters) feet to the fire.

LOl and you accused me of being an idiot earlier. What are we going to do to China to get them to play by the rules? Threaten to send them to time out?

 

[murox]

Stay in the agreement to hold China and India’s (the two leading polluters) feet to the fire.

Yeah, we should have remained in an agreement that would have cost the US economy over $2.5 trillion and costs the main polluting countries next to nothing.

 

[big_country90]

We can’t force India or China to do anything, whether we are in the accord or not.

 

[Raoul Duke MU]

We can’t force India or China to do anything, whether we are in the accord or not.

 

[Y.A.G Si Ye Nots]

I'm going to try and not call all of you morons names in this thread, because once I start doing that, you idiots tune out the message and don't learn anything. But the lack of basic fvcking intelligence exhibited in this thread is baffling.

First, Murox the Moron's graph shows only increases and decreases from one year. It doesn't show the overall emissions of each country. So when countryroads says "Stay in the agreement to hold China and India’s (the two leading polluters) feet to the fire," he is entirely wrong. China and India are not the "two leading polluters." Further, and more important, they also aren't the top two per capita. They just happen to have had the most increase in emissions in 2017.

In fact, India - a country with more than four times as many people as the U.S. - has less than half the amount of emissions as the U.S. Yet the U.S. (and you god damn, fvcking morons) want to cry that India isn't doing enough regarding emissions? Do you know what we would say if the situation happened to be reversed? We'd tell them to fvck off, because we have more than four times as many people yet less than half the emissions (which is exactly what they should be saying to us). Who are we to point fingers at places like India for emissions when we are substantially worse than they are? The U.S.' emissions rate is more than 8 times that of India's per capita, yet we are claiming they are the ones at fault here? China's is less than half of ours, yet we are pointing the finger at them? Can we possibly be more hypocritical on this issue?

Oh, but the U.S. is "trying," right, so it's different. Is this just another example of the right being about intentions instead of results? The U.S. should get their emissions amount, per capita, as good as China's, India's, the European Union's, Germany's, Japan's, or hell, even Russia's before we start crying.

A huge factor is looking at some of these countries. Regardless of recent growth in very small regions of India's economy, it is still a third world country with rampant, abject poverty. The U.S. has built a powerhouse economy, much of it as a result of raping fossil fuels and having no regard for environmental destruction. Now, suddenly, we expect third world countries to not have the same allowance until they build their economies to even a decent level? Again, can we be any more hypocritical on this other issue?

cost the US economy over $2.5 trillion and costs the main polluting countries next to nothing.

You dumb fvck. We ARE "the main polluting countries." Do you not even know what your graph shows? Your graph doesn't show which countries are the main polluters. It shows, based on one year, which countries had the biggest increase/decrease in emissions.

We are #2 (next to worst) in CO2 emissions. We are #2 (next to worst) in fossil fuel CO2 emissions. We are one of the worst in emissions per capita. No matter how you look at it, we are absolutely considered "the main polluting companies."

 

[Bankerreturns]

Companies?

Anyway, China is higher than the U.S. and EU combined, and they picked up another 160,000,000 metric tons on us just last year. I guess that's why you decided to focus on India.

Also, per capita doesn't mean squat. The number you want to look at is emissions per $1,000 of GDP. Check that list and get back to me.

 

[Chevy1]

The US is leading the world in greenhouse gas emission reduction. What more would you like for us to do? Should we pay China and India to pollute more?

Thanks for reminding everyone that the left is about intentions and not results.

What exactly is the negative with continuing with membership in this group? What's the benefit to getting out?

Well, getting out did feed the ego of a 70-year-old, spray-tanned pathological liar, but I fail to see any real benefit for the rest of us....or the world for that matter.

 

[Y.A.G Si Ye Nots]

Anyway, China is higher than the U.S. and EU combined, and they picked up another 160,000,000 metric tons on us just last year. I guess that's why you decided to focus on India.
.

I mentioned China two or three times. They have four times as many people yet less than half of the emissions.

Also, per capita doesn't mean squat. The number you want to look at is emissions per $1,000 of GDP. Check that list and get back to me.

What logic is that? "We destroy our fvcking environment so we can make some more money?" Let me guess, you're a partner in a "shop" that leases coal mining equipment?

 

[Bankerreturns]

Well, the GDP number matters if you are not, and do not want to be, a hut dweller. We produce a lot of stuff the world needs and can't produce efficiently for themselves. The fact that we do it very efficiently, four times more efficiently that China and three times more efficiently than India, is important. If we put climate over economy to the extent the EU has done then we are just pushing more production to countries that produce, literally, tons more pollution than we do to produce the same amount of goods.

 

[big_country90]

I'd love to know which one of my environments has been destroyed. I've been looking for years and can't find anything.

 

[Bankerreturns]

Let's just look at it this way. Among China, U.S., EU, India, Russia, and Japan over 70% of all CO2 emissions are generated. We are 25% of the World economy and produce 14% of the CO2, China is 15% of the economy and produces 30% of the CO2. India is about 3.5% of the economy and produces 6.8% of the CO2. Russia is 2% of the economy and almost 5% of emissions.

Our emissions are dropping, theirs are increasing. The Paris Accord had no teeth toward making China or India get their chit together. The best thing for the planet is for everything to be made in the U.S. or the EU and Japan. If we cut our emissions 5% a year that entire difference is ate up by China, India and Russia. If those cuts drive up our costs and force production to more friendly countries, then emissions grow even faster.

 

[ThunderCat98]

I'm going to try and not call all of you morons names in this thread, because once I start doing that, you idiots tune out the message and don't learn anything. But the lack of basic fvcking intelligence exhibited in this thread is baffling.

First, Murox the Moron's graph shows only increases and decreases from one year. It doesn't show the overall emissions of each country. So when countryroads says "Stay in the agreement to hold China and India’s (the two leading polluters) feet to the fire," he is entirely wrong. China and India are not the "two leading polluters." Further, and more important, they also aren't the top two per capita. They just happen to have had the most increase in emissions in 2017.

In fact, India - a country with more than four times as many people as the U.S. - has less than half the amount of emissions as the U.S. Yet the U.S. (and you god damn, fvcking morons) want to cry that India isn't doing enough regarding emissions? Do you know what we would say if the situation happened to be reversed? We'd tell them to fvck off, because we have more than four times as many people yet less than half the emissions (which is exactly what they should be saying to us). Who are we to point fingers at places like India for emissions when we are substantially worse than they are? The U.S.' emissions rate is more than 8 times that of India's per capita, yet we are claiming they are the ones at fault here? China's is less than half of ours, yet we are pointing the finger at them? Can we possibly be more hypocritical on this issue?

Oh, bu the U.S. is "trying," right, so it's different. Is this just another example of the right being about intentions instead of results? The U.S. should get their emissions amount, per capita, as good as China's, India', the European Union's, Germany's, Japan's, or hell, even Russia's before we start crying.

A huge factor is looking at some of these countries. Regardless of recent growth in very small regions of India's economy, it is still a third world country with rampant, abject poverty. The U.S. has built a powerhouse economy, much of it as a result of raping fossil fuels and having no regard for environmental destruction. Now, suddenly, we expect third world countries to not have the same allowance until they build their economies to even a decent level? Again, can we be any more hypocritical on this other issue?




You dumb fvck. We ARE "the main polluting countries." Do you not even know what your graph shows? Your graph doesn't show which countries are the main polluters. It shows, based on one year, which countries had the biggest increase/decrease in emissions.

We are #2 (next to worst) in CO2 emissions. We are #2 (next to worst) in fossil fuel CO2 emissions. We are one of the worst in emissions per capita. No matter how you look at it, we are absolutely considered "the main polluting companies."

 

[Y.A.G Si Ye Nots]

Well, the GDP number matters if you are not, and do not want to be, a hut dweller.

Our GDP is far more the result of our consumer culture than our producer culture, evidenced by our far greater importing than exporting. Our GDP doesn't determine which countries are the biggest polluters. Hell, we take a hit with our GDP for being cleaner yet still are far and away bigger polluters than just about every country both overall and per capita.

So your belief is that we shouldn't lose money on being cleaner since some other countries - countries that are far less polluters than we are - aren't immediately improving even though they are decreasing their emissions each year? Again, welcome to the top of hypocrisy.

We are 25% of the World economy and produce 14% of the CO2, China is 15% of the economy and produces 30% of the CO2. India is about 3.5% of the economy and produces 6.8% of the CO2. Russia is 2% of the economy and almost 5% of emissions.

And this goes back to my point about us being hypocrites on a second issue. We are a "Do as I say, not as I do" country. We built the biggest economy the world has ever seen by raping the environment/fossil fuel and annihilating the environment. Now, we want to tell third world countries not to do that to improve their economy. Why? Because then they stay poor and we can continue to control and manipulate them by dangling aid (and the threat of pulling it) if they don't follow our orders.

Let's just look at it this way. Among China, U.S., EU, India, Russia, and Japan over 70% of all CO2 emissions are generated.
.

I love when the banker tries to do math. You have a link to support your "over 70%" claim or can we just presume you still can't do basic math? It has no relevance to the discussion other than allowing me to laugh again that a banker struggles so much with simple math.

Our emissions are dropping, theirs are increasing. The Paris Accord had no teeth toward making China or India get their chit together.

You must not understand what the Accord is. Each country independently made its own plan and goals as a pledge to the rest of the world. China's was a four part plan. One of their four was to peak its emissions in 2030. They are hoping to peak it before that time, as their consumption of coal and emissions are already on track to peak well before then. Another of the four was to lower emissions in relation to GDP growth to 60-65% of the same numbers from 2005. In other words, relative to their GDP, they plan on using 60-65% of the emissions they were using in 2005. Last year, their GDP grew over 7% last year while their emissions increased by 1.-something %. In other words, they were ahead of their stated goal even though their emissions slightly increased.

China was and is well on their way to "getting their sh!t together" when it comes to emissions. In fact, they are considered one of the leaders due to their plan and turnaround already from what was a much worse situation just years ago.

that entire difference is ate up by China,
.

*Eaten. I'd tell you to stick to numbers instead of words, but as we saw with your "over 70%" claim, that probably isn't a good idea.

The best thing for the planet is for everything to be made in the U.S. or the EU and Japan.

No, the best thing for the planet would be for everything to be made in Japan, just about all of the countries in the EU, Australia, Brazil, and possibly Canada. Based on your logic of claiming GDP as the target when determining the most efficient, all of those countries are far, far more efficient than the U.S.

 

[big_country90]

And this goes back to my point about us being hypocrites on a second issue. We are a "Do as I say, not as I do" country. We built the biggest economy the world has ever seen by raping the environment/fossil fuel and annihilating the environment. Now, we want to tell third world countries not to do that to improve their economy.

No..."we" are not hypocrites on this issue. That's reserved for you leftists. I'm fine with any country that chooses to use their natural resources to make their economy better. You, OTOH, want America to become less prosperous and more like them, not the other way around. And please show me where our "environment" has been "annihilated."

 

[big_country90]

Because then they stay poor and we can continue to control and manipulate them by dangling aid (and the threat of pulling it) if they don't follow our orders.

Not only is this sentence poorly constructed, it sounds like a talking point at the democrat headquarters when discussing why democrats want to keep minorities poor.

 

[i am herdman]

Stay in the agreement to hold China and India’s (the two leading polluters) feet to the fire.

how? They are in it by name only. Ripping us off and it was a bad deal for us.

 

[Y.A.G Si Ye Nots]

No..."we" are not hypocrites on this issue. That's reserved for you leftists. I'm fine with any country that chooses to use their natural resources to make their economy better.
"

Even the most blinded, redneck Republican doesn't think countries should be allowed to rape their environment and future generations by having unlimited use of their natural resources to improve their economy. Yet here you are, taking a position that is foolish by any reasonable view just so you can defend the deplorable whom you support. Bravo.

You've asked multiple times to show how anyone's environment has been destroyed/damaged.

I fully planned on buying a condo and a piece of beach land in Florida within the last couple of months. Besides a legal delay on building permits on the piece of land, I also haven't purchased a condo in that area. A huge part of that is because of the red tide that has plagued it for the last couple of months. A friend of mine lives in Gainesville and works for Mote Marine Lab in Sarasota. She has a PhD. Her focus is identifying red tide, toxic algae bloom, the causes, how to stop it, and the future chances of it happening.

A couple of years ago, red tide was so bad a couple of hours south of me that thousands - literally thousands - of dead fish were ending up on the shore and the canals that connect to the ocean. Pictures showed canals in people's backyards where you couldn't see any water; the top of the water was simply a traffic jam of dead fish.

My friend was the expert many media outlets went to for an explanation. Her explanation was that the major sugar companies (Big Sugar) were allowed by the governor of Florida to send all of their excess water towards that part of the ocean. Even though Big Sugar claims that the excess water is stripped of a lot of the nutrients that the sugar cane fields put in it, it still has a high enough concentration that it leads to algae blooms. That in turn leads to red tide which kills substantial marine life, turns the water a gross color, and becomes so toxic that humans can't even walk the beach without having burning sensations in their throat/nose and coughing.

Your favorite place in the country, Destin? That region is already getting bombed by red tide. Santa Rosa and Fort Walton Beaches have closed over the last couple of days because of it. A former Marshall cheerleader was down there a couple of weeks ago to celebrate her young daughter's birthday, and they weren't able to even walk the beach because of it. The smell of dead fish is noticeable blocks away from the beach.

You think I am buying in that area until this is clean and a plan is made to stop it in the future?

And if you think my friend is somehow paid to take these scientific stances against big business . . . she has been on the Weather Channel numerous times over the last few weeks talking about it. She, against popular public belief, insists that this red tide is not related to Big Sugar pollution (unlike her stance on her investigation from a couple of years ago for the other bloom). So she isn't just out to place blame on big corporations, Republican politicians, etc.

That's just one of many examples of how the environment has been destroyed due to people having no regard for it for the sake of profit.

Not only is this sentence poorly constructed, it sounds like a talking point at the democrat headquarters when discussing why democrats want to keep minorities poor.

It's absolutely true. And that isn't blamed on any one party. Both parties take advantage of that. It doesn't make it right.

how? They are in it by name only. Ripping us off and it was a bad deal for us.

You're entirely clueless on this. China has made huge strides environmentally both before and after the Accord. They are on pace to not only reach their goals stated but to also beat their timeline in doing so.

They are hardly in it for name only and are definitely not "ripping us off."

Why do so many of you think America is the lone white horse in the world and every other single country is a black sheep set on simply ripping us off, being unethical, etc.?

 

[i am herdman]

Wow didn't know red tide only started two years ago.

China steals our patents and intellectual property all the time. Hacks our businesses. They can be trusted on this? Get real

 

[Raoul Duke MU]

I'd love to know which one of my environments has been destroyed. I've been looking for years and can't find anything.

You haven't been looking very hard, especially as a West Virginian, unless you consider orange water to be normal.

 

[Y.A.G Si Ye Nots]

Wow didn't know red tide only started two years ago.

No shit. What does that have to do with anything? BC asked how parts of the environment have been destroyed.

China steals our patents and intellectual property all the time. Hacks our businesses. They can be trusted on this? Get real

Well before the Accord, they were investing hundreds of millions in multiple initiatives regarding the environment. This isn't even something debatable.

 

[i am herdman]

No shit. What does that have to do with anything? BC asked how parts of the environment have been destroyed.




Well before the Accord, they were investing hundreds of millions in multiple initiatives regarding the environment. This isn't even something debatable.

Sure it is debatable.

Red tide wasn't caused by man

 

[Bankerreturns]

China - 29.51%
USA - 14.34%
European Union - 9.62%
India - 6.81%
Russia - 4.88%
Japan - 3.47%
Germany - 2.16% (part of the EU, but broken out on this list for some reason)
Total - 70.79%

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_dioxide_emissions

 

[Y.A.G Si Ye Nots]

Sure it is debatable.

Red tide wasn't caused by man

Environmental issues caused by man isn't exclusive to things over just the last two years. Your first comment makes even less sense now.

Red tide wasn't "created" by man. Red tide is absolutely magnified by man to the point that it causes huge problems instead of it just naturally going away at much lower intensities.

 

[Y.A.G Si Ye Nots]

China - 29.51%
USA - 14.34%
European Union - 9.62%
India - 6.81%
Russia - 4.88%
Japan - 3.47%
Germany - 2.16% (part of the EU, but broken out on this list for some reason)
Total - 70.79%

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_dioxide_emissions

Yes, Germany is "broken out" on the list just as Spain, Netherlands, Italy, France, Poland, the U.K., Czech Republic, Romania, Slovakia, Belgium, etc. are. Do you know what those countries add up to? The amount of the European Union on the list.

In other words, you've counted Germany's number twice, in which case, the total of the countries you named is 68.63 according to your numbers. 68.63 is not "over 70" like you claimed.

God, I truly love when you try talking about numbers.

 

[big_country90]

God, I truly love when you try talking about numbers.

Why, because you think it will take the heat off you? After all, you've proven time and time again that you can't comprehend 5th grade math.

 

[Y.A.G Si Ye Nots]

Why, because you think it will take the heat off you? After all, you've proven time and time again that you can't comprehend 5th grade math.

What in the fvck are you talking about? I'm better in math than I am in English/grammar.

 

[big_country90]

What in the fvck are you talking about? I'm better in math than I am in English/grammar.

Not based on the posts you make here. I've made mention at least 5-6 times of your failings at simple math on this board. If you're too focused on getting owned by murox to realize the constant math mistakes you make on here, that's not my problem.

 

[Y.A.G Si Ye Nots]

Not based on the posts you make here. I've made mention at least 5-6 times of your failings at simple math on this board. If you're too focused on getting owned by murox to realize the constant math mistakes you make on here, that's not my problem.

Well, if you've made that many, you should easily be able to show links to just half of them. Have at it.

I can't recall a single time you have corrected (or even attempted to) me on math.

 

[big_country90]

I'm not always the one to correct you. Here is a recent thread where banker corrected your incorrect math. I did point out your constant math failings though, to which you responded.

https://marshall.forums.rivals.com/threads/banker-tis-that-time-of-year-again.40713/#post-565159

 

[Y.A.G Si Ye Nots]

I'm not always the one to correct you. Here is a recent thread where banker corrected your incorrect math. I did point out your constant math failings though, to which you responded.

https://marshall.forums.rivals.com/threads/banker-tis-that-time-of-year-again.40713/#post-565159

I'm the one who corrected him, moron. I even stated that I knew what he intended to say, but what he said and the math he used was wrong. He needed to word it differently . . . and, again, that was all explained before he tried challenging/explaining it.

On top of that, that thread references your math error that I called you out on in another thread! Your excuse was that you forgot to do a math process but doesn't change the fact that I was the one correcting you in math.

Stay clueless.

 

[big_country90]

And comments like that show why you continue to struggle with 5th grade math.

 

[C.K. Ocsevol-Evad]

And comments like that show why you continue to struggle with 5th grade math.

1) you claim that you have corrected simple math errors of mine 5-6 times
2) you can’t link a single one
3) hell, you can’t even recall a single one
4) you link an instance where somebody else allegedly corrects a math error of mine, but in reality, it was me correcting him on the math error
5) you link to a post that references a post where I corrected you on a math error which you clearly admitted to making
6) you follow all of that up with yet another nonsensical comment