1 Billion already paid to Paris agreement,no congressional approval, GO Trump

[Robert]

The Paris accord a record bad deal for the US done without Congressional approval and Obama has already paid out 1 billion. The head are countries that only have to pay .30 percent and have no real industry like South Africa. The money holder is Germany and the world bank, imagine that. If Trump had to go and tell other countries to pay their fair share for other projects I wonder what would happen with the Paris Accord? This agreement was the reason Obama killed coal in the US because according to the terms the US can have no more polluting emissions from now while other countries get a 30 year break in implementation. Below are some of the details and some more information to start with.


Without Congressional approval previous admin already paid 1 Billion to this world slush fund.

Days After $500 Million US Contribution, U.N. Green Climate Fund Increases Staff by 150%
http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/patrick-goodenough/days-after-500000-us-contribution-un-green-climate-fund-increases

Some Republican lawmakers are incensed that the administration is going ahead with the funding without specific congressional authorization, warning that the move may be illegal. The Obama State Department says it has determined that the funding is permissible.

President Obama pledged $3 billion to the GCF over four years, and a first installment, and also $500 million, was paid last March.

Sen. John Barrasso (R-Wyo.), who has led the criticism, on Tuesday called the latest payment “an insult to American taxpayers.”

“The hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars the Obama administration spent on the United Nations Green Climate Fund were never approved by Congress,” he said.

The GCF’s administration budget for 2016, agreed at the last board meeting four months ago, is $29.157 million. The breakdown is $3.64 million for the board, $24.64 million for the secretariat, and $0.87 million for the trustee – the entity responsible for the receipt, investment and transfer of financial contributions. (The World Bank is serving as interim trustee.)

Of the $3.64 million budgeted for the board this year, $1.32 million is for board meetings and $22,500 is for travel for the two co-chairs and board representative.

The GCF’s current resources – pledged or delivered contributions from more than 40 governments – amount to $10.3 billion, almost 30 percent of which is set to come from U.S. taxpayers.

FULL SPEECH: President Trump Statement on Climate Agreement 6-1-2017 Withdraws from Paris Accord
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q9gf5viOEDg


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris_Agreement

[bagelboy]

Though he will get killed by the press, Trump is correct. The US is funding another deal inwhich others benefit and do not put up their fair share. Think of the hundreds of billions the US will save alone between deals like this, and giving free military defense to other countries. It's time for the rest of the world to realize that the US is not going to pay for all of the rest of the world. Thumbs up Trump!

[Gavin_Sons]

Though he will get killed by the press, Trump is correct. The US is funding another deal inwhich others benefit and do not put up their fair share. Think of the hundreds of billions the US will save alone between deals like this, and giving free military defense to other countries. It's time for the rest of the world to realize that the US is not going to pay for all of the rest of the world. Thumbs up Trump!

But all that money was preventing "Global Warming".   

[therapist]

Hopefully, there will be a re-negotiation.

15 of last 17 years, record heat. The United States is currently the world’s second-largest carbon emitter and by far its largest historically, the idea is that the U.S. must act first to motivate other countries to act.

The thing some may be missing, regardless of how we feel about other countries,
we all share the same air.

[G-Man]

The "Science" I am told is that heat from the sun, warms the earth and the earth emits back the warmth, which is then trapped in the atmosphere by CO2 preventing the heat to escape which further warms up the whole thing.

One question then,..... why does the heat blocking properties of CO2 work in only one direction?  How come it only blocks the heat coming up from the earth and it doesn't block the heat reaching the planet from the sun.  If CO2 is a heat blocker, shouldn't less heat be reaching the earth IN THE FIRST PLACE?  Wouldn't that make things colder? 

[G-Man]

The "Science" I am told is that heat from the sun, warms the earth and the earth emits back the warmth, which is then trapped in the atmosphere by CO2 preventing the heat to escape which further warms up the whole thing.

One question then,..... why does the heat blocking properties of CO2 work in only one direction?  How come it only blocks the heat coming up from the earth and it doesn't block the heat reaching the planet from the sun.  If CO2 is a heat blocker, shouldn't less heat be reaching the earth IN THE FIRST PLACE?  Wouldn't that make things colder? 

Oh, and GO President Trump!  MY President!  Paris, Texas first, not Paris France!

[old2soon]

I just KNEW the good ol U S of A was expected to pick up the largest chunk of the tab on this particular BOONDOGGLE. And THAT'S what pissed off the rest of the World-Our President Trump was having none of it. The fact the former potus got this ball rollin ain't really all that surprising. How MANY other time bombs has the former potus left behind? And also the fact he-former potus- lacked Congressional Approval-sadly again NOT surprising. When "science" tells me how MUCH something gonna cost to make it right and they can't or won't guarantee it will work I git very skeptical and edgy bout the "science"!    RIDE SAFE.

[baldo]

The "Science" I am told is that heat from the sun, warms the earth and the earth emits back the warmth, which is then trapped in the atmosphere by CO2 preventing the heat to escape which further warms up the whole thing.

One question then,..... why does the heat blocking properties of CO2 work in only one direction?  How come it only blocks the heat coming up from the earth and it doesn't block the heat reaching the planet from the sun.  If CO2 is a heat blocker, shouldn't less heat be reaching the earth IN THE FIRST PLACE?  Wouldn't that make things colder? 

[Jess from VA]

We should bail, and unfund entirely.  (It's all junk science, not that unrestricted pollution is good either)

Most all the (US) big corporate boys saying we should stay are only saying that so we continue to be a player at the table, and thus able to effect it's rules and decisions.  I'm OK with that, so long as our contribution is the same as Portugal's.  But if we are expected to pick up the lion's share of the bill, we should bail entirely.  In no event, should we abandon one iota of our national sovereignty to a foreign conglomerate. 

I feel exactly the same way about the UN, except it's time to kick the UN out of the USA no matter what we do.  We have enough committed socialists here already without all those idiots and wack jobs. 

[RP#62]

I don't think US dropping out keeps anyone that's committed to the cause foreign or domestic from continuing on.  It just means they'll have to use their own money.  As sincere as they are about saving the planet, I'm sure that won't be a problem.

-RP

[Oss]

Gman like I said in the other post its pretty damn arrogant of the democrats and globalists to state that we cause global warming and there is no science to back it up

Saying 10 yrs in a row is warmer than before does not mean we caused it
We are in a solar cycle which repeats and which has NOTHING to do with us puny humans

More important is cleaning the oceans of plastic, pollution, protecting the air and water we drink  That would impact everyone in a positive way

I said it before one volcano erupting emits more ash into the atmosphere than every car or truck ever run during its life.

Once we clean the drinking water under our feet, the  air we all must  breathe and oceans of plastic and sewage then we will see what the net result of our labor is

Paris Texas indeed ! Well said Gary

[Moonshot_1]

In all the debate about global warming/climate change, the way it is generally presented is that it is "proven science" and then you are bombarded by a deluge of data, much of which is tortured science.

The earth has been in climate change since it's inception.
There is all kinds of data to show this.
The problem isn't that it is a hoax. Though that is how they try to frame the question. The problem is that there are people and groups who take the data and run scams.
Al Gore is numero uno in this regard.

I just have some simple questions that never seem to be adequately answered.

What is the optimal median temperature of the Earth?
How is the optimal median temperature of the Earth determined?
What is the median temp of the Earth now?
What is the ratio of "greenhouse gasses" emitted by human industry vs. naturally occurring emissions?


Just thinking about this historically. In the 40's during WWII. Look at all the industrial effort in that time.
The building of ships, tanks, planes, guns, ammo, gas, diesel burned, cities bombed and burned. The oceans should have rose 20 feet with all the carbon released in that time frame. 

I'd like to see some real answers to my questions. Not cherry picked ones.

We need to have policies for clean water and clean air. Policies with the highest of standards. As a general rule I believe the US has done an exceptional job in pursuing this goal. Yes, some things have gone awry in the process, but we, as a nation, have made great efforts and continue to do so.

But we can only be the world's leader on this if we have a strong and viable economy. The Paris accord was an obvious detriment to the US. It was good to walk away from it. There is nothing in walking away from a terrible deal that prevents the US from continuing to pursue the goals of a clean environment.

What I found convincing in Trump's speech was the part that concerned economic growth.
This Paris accord was ok for the US if the US was committed to 1% economic growth per year.
The problem is that we cannot be ok with 1% growth. We need at least 3% growth and should not expect less than 4%.
We cannot get to 3% economic growth with a Paris Accord limiting our energy production.

If folks want health care, a strong military and a great business climate, we need a vibrant economy, we need all kinds of energy. We need wealth.  The Paris Accord not only restricted our energy production but would bind us to an agreement that would have other industrious countries energy production unrestricted.

The World is much better with a Strong and Vibrant America.

[The emperor has no clothes]

If folks want health care, a strong military and a great business climate, we need a vibrant economy, we need all kinds of energy. We need wealth.  The Paris Accord not only restricted our energy production but would bind us to an agreement that would have other industrious countries energy production unrestricted.

Wrong. There is nothing binding. It's not a binding treaty, merely an agreement to help the environment.

[Moonshot_1]

If folks want health care, a strong military and a great business climate, we need a vibrant economy, we need all kinds of energy. We need wealth.  The Paris Accord not only restricted our energy production but would bind us to an agreement that would have other industrious countries energy production unrestricted.

Wrong. There is nothing binding. It's not a binding treaty, merely an agreement to help the environment.

It isn't binding in the legal sense. But if we agreed to continue observing the conditions of the treaty, non-binding as it may be, would we not  be agreeing to bind ourselves to it? Of course we would.
So to have stayed in the Accord would have bound ourselves, morally and ethically, to observing the conditions of the Treaty. Conditions that were not in the best interest of the US and of dubious interest to the environment.

[TallRider]

If anyone would look up the study of the most severe volcano eruptions over the past several hundred years. The data shows in the most severe eruptions the earth actualy was cooled by these events. These eruptions spewed more co2 in the air than anything the civilized  world could ever produce. I think i read somewhere after St Hellen eruption the study stated it spewed more pollutants in the air than  the industrial revelution of the last century. So why does the earth cool after these events and not warm. Just wondering?

[The emperor has no clothes]

If folks want health care, a strong military and a great business climate, we need a vibrant economy, we need all kinds of energy. We need wealth.  The Paris Accord not only restricted our energy production but would bind us to an agreement that would have other industrious countries energy production unrestricted.

Wrong. There is nothing binding. It's not a binding treaty, merely an agreement to help the environment.

It isn't binding in the legal sense. But if we agreed to continue observing the conditions of the treaty, non-binding as it may be, would we not  be agreeing to bind ourselves to it? Of course we would.
So to have stayed in the Accord would have bound ourselves, morally and ethically, to observing the conditions of the Treaty. Conditions that were not in the best interest of the US and of dubious interest to the environment.

that's some pretty twisted, convoluted logic there my friend. Non-binding means just that, non-binding. No treaty, just an agreement.

[Serk]

Wrong. There is nothing binding. It's not a binding treaty, merely an agreement to help the environment.

If it was truly non-binding then why the concern that we opted out of it?

[Alpha Dog]

It was a blood sucker deal to lift more money from the hands of hard working US tax payers and send it to the other countries on just a promise to try and lower CO2 emissions.  Of course the ones who came up with this cockamanny scheme,  the international bankers will take their cut to send it on.  And who is going to monitor how the money is spent.  We all know the plan, play the US for the suckers we have been and fleece us of money.  We finally have a potus that is not going to play the scams any more.   And boy are the heads screaming, especially Merkey Merkel.  Figures it is a German bank behind this.   She can not even pay their share of Nato.

MIT did a study and said if everyone did as they pledged that in 83 years the temp.  will only rise 0.2 degrees Centigrade.  Is that negligable?  Pretty good of them to come up with this when no one can tell me what the temp will be in 2 weeks.   The temp. of Earth is based on trillions of equations that no model can be built for.  How do we know what sunspots will arise that determine to some degree determine sun output.  Why was the earth warmer 1000 years ago than now?  Only thing certain is a new ice age is on the horizon, maybe soon - maybe 20k years.   I for one would love to see southern Ohio winters average Atlanta or even Eastern Tennessee, but that is not going to happen.  How come China and India plan is to wait until 2030 for China, and India will do something if we just give them 2.5 trillion dollars.   Hey give me just a billion and I will help.

[The emperor has no clothes]

Wrong. There is nothing binding. It's not a binding treaty, merely an agreement to help the environment.

If it was truly non-binding then why the concern that we opted out of it?

I'm not really concerned so much about the agreement. I am concerned about our lack of leadership in the world.

[Moonshot_1]

If folks want health care, a strong military and a great business climate, we need a vibrant economy, we need all kinds of energy. We need wealth.  The Paris Accord not only restricted our energy production but would bind us to an agreement that would have other industrious countries energy production unrestricted.

Wrong. There is nothing binding. It's not a binding treaty, merely an agreement to help the environment.

It isn't binding in the legal sense. But if we agreed to continue observing the conditions of the treaty, non-binding as it may be, would we not  be agreeing to bind ourselves to it? Of course we would.
So to have stayed in the Accord would have bound ourselves, morally and ethically, to observing the conditions of the Treaty. Conditions that were not in the best interest of the US and of dubious interest to the environment.

that's some pretty twisted, convoluted logic there my friend. Non-binding means just that, non-binding. No treaty, just an agreement.

Nothing twisted or convoluted.
We have a non binding agreement.
The agreement has conditions.

If I choose to honor the agreement, I am bound to the conditions of the agreement by definition.
If I choose to not honor the agreement, it is a non binding agreement and the conditions are moot.

[Serk]

I realize most who need to read this won't, and no, it's not form a left wing perspective, but makes some very valid points:

http://www.dailywire.com/news/17093/7-things-you-need-know-about-paris-accord-aaron-bandler

Point #3 very relevant to the "Non binding" aspect.

Even if you're a true believer in the Church of Climatology, this was a VERY bad deal for the USA. It was basically a way to force our wealth to be given to "developing" countries under the guise of climate change.

See point #5. Under the accord, the USA would have been giving  a TRILLION dollars every 10 years to other countries under the guide of climate change.

[Jess from VA]

Wrong. There is nothing binding. It's not a binding treaty, merely an agreement to help the environment.

If it was truly non-binding then why the concern that we opted out of it?

Dude, it's still not too late for law school.          (I only jest, don't do it!!)

And you scored on Bandler link too.  Climate change policy is mostly a smoke screen massive money collection device to advance socialism and redistribution of wealth.  Pollution control is only an also ran.

[Serk]

Dude, it's still not too late for law school.

Sometimes I wish I'd taken a different branch in life, but seeing as I've barely got a high school diploma, it would be a very long and expensive path to acquire my JD...

But I'm truly flattered by your vote of confidence!

[Jess from VA]

Dude, it's still not too late for law school.

Sometimes I wish I'd taken a different branch in life, but seeing as I've barely got a high school diploma, it would be a very long and expensive path to acquire my JD...

But I'm truly flattered by your vote of confidence!

As you know, schooling is no guarantee of wisdom, good judgment, a good job, or happiness.  It is a guarantee of years of hard work, learning the school solution, poverty, and these days.... massive debt.  I am not one of those guys who would do it the same way again.

I only call them like I see them. 

[Serk]

Seeing as we still have a 6 figure debt for the spousal unit's education (If only Bernie had won! ) yeah, I won't be going back to school any time soon... But I did luck out by timing my interest and natural skill into a career at the exact right time where a degree wasn't necessary...

(Threadjack, but some threads needs to be jacked...)

[fudgie]

People breathe off CO2. 

[Jess from VA]

Continuing the drift (we were done anyway, weren't we?)

Just to demonstrate my age, full schedule tuition at my good state university was about $300 a semester.  When I started law school and was told tuition would be $1,000 a semester, I was spitting mad indignant about it.  I did not need to borrow a dime for school, and paid it cash working steel mills in the summers.  I did borrow a few grand my last two years of law school, but only because I felt like a heel living off my first wife 9 months' each year during school.  I paid all my own expenses year round and everything during the summers, but food, rent and utilities were on her during school, so I borrowed money and gave it to her.  

When I started at USDVA at 40yo, I worked with many new grads who owed all of undergrad and law at $200K, and up.  I simply would not pay that kind of money today.  

[Savago]

Unless you hold a PhD in related fields (climatology, chemistry, etc), implying that the science of weather changes published in peer reviewed journals is wrong is just... foolish.

Having 'an opinion' won't change the reality of the universe or the science that try to explain it.

I can have an opinion that '2 + 2 = 5'. Or that the weather is as good as it ever was and we can't do anything to improve the life conditions in this planet. I would still be wrong.

Even in the possibility that those weather changes are coming no matter what, we owe to the future generations to at least try to fix the problem.

Yes, that may mean changes in our lifestyle. But it is our kids that will inherit the future.

[Robert]

I dont know how much more binding it could be after paying out 1 billion dollars and being on the hook for more.  Then on top of that shutting down coal and hamstringing industry with regulations that cost billions. Also the cost of jobs and no slack on the implementation time.

I have long said this CO2 is the gas that they are trying to regulate we exhale CO2, cars produce CO2, natural sources such a volcanic activity produce more CO2 than the human race could  in years. So you want to regulate a gas that is natural, exhaled by every human being taken in by every plant and is the source of life of so many biological processes and put taxes on something that is natural and cannot be stopped without killing off the human race. Does anyone remember ozone, and we were going to die from that, LOL.  That sounds logical I guess.

Dr. Roy Spencer, a climate scientist, noted in a column that reduction in temperature under the accord "is unmeasurable by current global temperature monitoring networks."


You  know we are not even talking about the fact that this is a lawless agreement. Congress never approved it or even addressed it, it was international agreement hoist upon us by an executive order under Obama, that alone makes it questionable, Congress holds the purse strings. Obama did it only because he knew Congress would not approve the law because it was a bad deal for the American worker and the US as a whole. Trump is returning the law and the US back to the middle class.

[MP]

Wrong. There is nothing binding. It's not a binding treaty, merely an agreement to help the environment.

If it was truly non-binding then why the concern that we opted out of it?

Correct. If non binding, then withdrawing is ok, as no different than remaining.

[Robert]

 Two-thirds of Americans would struggle to cover $1,000 crisis
https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/personalfinance/2016/05/21/poll-americans-economic-situation-paying-bills/84665088/

Almost half of Americans die nearly broke
https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/personalfinance/retirement/2017/06/02/almost-half-of-americans-die-nearly-broke/102312340/

The Secret Shame of Middle-Class Americans
Nearly half of Americans would have trouble finding $400 to pay for an emergency
https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2016/05/my-secret-shame/476415/

The financial state of states: The truth may scare you
http://www.cnbc.com/2015/06/23/the-financial-state-of-states-the-truth-may-scare-you.html

61% of Americans are living paycheck to paycheck, up from 49% last year and 43% in 2007
50% of Americans have less than one month of savings saved for emergencies

Environmental cost to the American public is trillions of dollars added pollution controls to a diesel vehicle is alone 10 to 15k each one.

From 2000 to 2014 the share of adults living in middle-income households fell in 203 of the 229 U.S. metropolitan areas examined in a new Pew Research Center analysis of government data. The decrease in the middle-class share was often substantial, measuring 6 percentage points or more in 53 metropolitan areas, compared with a 4-point drop nationally.

In 2015, U.S. health care costs were $3.2 trillion. That makes health care one of the largest U.S. industries, equaling 17.8 percent of gross domestic product. Compare that to 1960, when health care cost $27.2 billion, just 5 percent of GDP.

That translates to $9,990 a year per person in health care costs. That was just $146 per person in 1960. Health care costs rose faster than the annual income. In 2015, U.S. health care costs were $3.2 trillion. That makes health care one of the largest U.S. industries, equaling 17.8 percent of gross domestic product.

So tell me again why we have to spend billions on an agreement that the costs the US trillions of dollars already in environmental costs and regulations, when we have these kind of numbers we dont address?

[Oss]

I for one would welcome a proposal where we take that money and seed our and other proven "clean up the world" industries and put people to work globally and here at home
it is an engine that really could drive the world economy and return us to the top as well with GNP growth

Water shortages are real, Desalinization technology (Israel has it) can now take that water that is rising in the oceans and use it to create fertile farms and safe water to drink.  Technology to remove the thousand square miles of plastic in the oceans exists today.  Technology to produce elecricity from the energy of waves and tides exists today In a hundred years the internal combustion engine may go the way of the steam engine  It may not but investing in alternative sources of energy is not a waste, it is being prepared for the future.

Yeah, the globalist does not make money off of that, funny and sad
neither does big pharma-big business  too bad for all of us

[hubcapsc]

I for one would welcome a proposal where we take that money and seed our and other proven "clean up the world" industries and put people to work globally and here at home
it is an engine that really could drive the world economy and return us to the top as well with GNP growth

Water shortages are real, Desalinization technology (Israel has it) can now take that water that is rising in the oceans and use it to create fertile farms and safe water to drink.  Technology to remove the thousand square miles of plastic in the oceans exists today.  Technology to produce elecricity from the energy of waves and tides exists today In a hundred years the internal combustion engine may go the way of the steam engine  It may not but investing in alternative sources of energy is not a waste, it is being prepared for the future.

Yeah, the globalist does not make money off of that, funny and sad
neither does big pharma-big business  too bad for all of us

Along this same line... look at the wiki page for Thorium Reactors...

- more  plentiful fuel sources

- shorter half-life on waste

- products of reaction are hard to use for weapons

- the real kicker: when something goes wrong it winds down instead of going out of control...

Political Global Warming is a load of hooey... use money to figure out stuff that is
better, and then people will use it because they want to, not because the government
cabals make them...

-Mike

[threevalks]

People breathe off CO2.  

Plants take in co2 and produce oxygen. ALl we need to do is plant more plants.

[Alpha Dog]

I for one would welcome a proposal where we take that money and seed our and other proven "clean up the world" industries and put people to work globally and here at home
it is an engine that really could drive the world economy and return us to the top as well with GNP growth

Water shortages are real, Desalinization technology (Israel has it) can now take that water that is rising in the oceans and use it to create fertile farms and safe water to drink.  Technology to remove the thousand square miles of plastic in the oceans exists today.  Technology to produce elecricity from the energy of waves and tides exists today In a hundred years the internal combustion engine may go the way of the steam engine  It may not but investing in alternative sources of energy is not a waste, it is being prepared for the future.

Yeah, the globalist does not make money off of that, funny and sad
neither does big pharma-big business  too bad for all of us

I like that Oss, like it a lot.  There is an alternative energy source out their to seek.  It may be fusion, the source that drives the stars and could be very cheap.  Or Hydrogen, my gosh the universe is Hydrogen and helium about 98 percent of known matter.   It could be a world wide effort to achieve.  If one wants to unleash the full human potential just find an energy source that  is limitless and next to no cost that all can use.  However their are forces about that do not want to see this as it would unchain humans from their so called masters.  Some theorize that the UFOs powersource is gravity waves that fixate on a large. mass and then amplify the gravity waves.  Maybe that is why they can make ridiculous straight angle turns at ridiculous speeds.   Maybe it is that mysterious force they call dark matter that is moving all the galaxy's away from each other.

[JimC]

Climate change is nothing but a redistribution of wealth and a large step toward "The One World Order"

FOLLOW THE MONEY

Jim

[fudgie]

People breathe off CO2.  

Plants take in co2 and produce oxygen. ALl we need to do is plant more plants.

[BradValk48237]

Okay ...... lets look at the science behind Global Warming... I know I won't convince some naysayers, but ....

One-https://climate.nasa.gov/climate_resources/24/

This is from the people Who got us to the moon......

Two- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide_in_Earth%27s_atmosphere

This is general knowledge.... Backed up by real science based on ice core samples and fossil records.

Yes there have been fluctuation in CO2 almost forever... However since the start of the industrial revolution and increasing population, and deforestation, increased use of fossil fuels- All human driven..... CO2 is at its highest levels for at least the last 10,000 - if not 20 million years....

Another example of how us humans effect the planet is that 2 days after 911 the amount of sunlight that hit the earth increased by a small but significant amount.... why you ask  did 911 have this effect? No Jets in the air..... the amount of exhaust contrails caused by air travel actually effects the amount of sunlight that reaches the earth.

Ozone... remember the hole in the ozone layer? Remember all the bitching about having to different coolant and stoping the use of Hydrofluorocarbons? well guess what.. since we stopped using them the hole has significantly closed up.

Earth is a machine, Almost like our beloved Valks... when things are out of balance- think carbs- it doesn't run right. Right now the Earth is more out of balance than it eve has been- someone said just plant more trees... problem is WE are the ones that cut them all down to feed the all us new humans

Fact- in 1810 ( start of the industrial revolution ) the were about 1 Billion people on the planet.... In 200 years that has increased to over 7 Billion ( That a 70% increase !) If your household increased 70%- could you support it?

Prior to 1810, CO2 never got to the levels we are at now in the last 800,000 years per ice core samples.

So to say humans have not had an effect on out planet is just plain wrong.....tanstaafl

The Paris Accord is to try and level and reduce the amount of green house gasses WE produce through our lifestyle- And to help prevent 3rd World countries from starting to produce those same gases... there were only 2 countries that did not agree this was a good thing....

Yes China is One of the top 3 worst - along with US... but at there current level of spending on renewable energy, they will be way ahead of us in limiting their use of coal and other fossil fuels in the next 10-20 years... giving their economy more money to spend on Importing OUR goods (and more money for "defense" spending)at their current rate of investing in solar panels alone they could control the market in the production and sales of solar panels in the next 5 years..

One last point- The agreements in Paris were based on prior treaties-

United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, which was negotiated at the 1992 Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro, approved by the U.S. Senate with no opposition and signed by President George H.W. Bush.

Yes Republicans agreed that we were effecting the climate...25 YEARS AGO!!!


I will stop here...... Im going out to burn some fossil fuel in the best way.

B

[The emperor has no clothes]

Thanks, it's hard to refute good, solid science. But I'm afraid you are right, many wont listen. 

[BradValk48237]

More fuel to the fire.....

https://www.fastcompany.com/40426665/by-pulling-out-of-the-paris-agreement-trump-just-threw-away-americas-biggest-business-opportunity

BTW this was written with a congressman from TN....

B