America 1st

[Cardboard]

I wish that all of our leaders had the same ethic and courage.

 

Cardboard

 

 

 

[jeffmori7]

I must admit I don't get why isolationism could be a winning strategy for anyone, ever...

[jeffmori7]

Oh and by the way, the Paris agreement is non-binding. USA have no obligation to do anything under it. But for once, almost all the countries on the planet had an agreement to collaborate onto something. Quitting this will just alienate many people who are your allies.

 

And some facts: http://mashable.com/2017/06/01/trump-paris-climate-agreement-8-signs-wrong/?utm_cid=hp-hh-sec#DFo6EgQwS5qX

[LC]

Trump is still an idiot. Hopefully the rest of the world looks past this wart when dealing with the US in the coming decades.

[RichardGibbons]

It would be amusing if, during the renegotiation of NAFTA, Canada decided to add carbon tariffs to everything imported from the USA.  You can't force a win in a game of Prisoner's Dilemma, but you can certainly force the other guy to lose.

 

I've been reading Liu's The Three Body Problem, and, when you look at Trump and his supporters, you can kind of understand the people who decide to side with the aliens.  In a sense, Trump brings to mind the same passions and logic behind China's Cultural Revolution.

[rb]

I guess the question is first in what? Trying to pollute themselves? Hurt the environment? We have no need for air right?

 

What does this solve apart from fluffing some weird obsession with coal? It's not about jobs, there won't be a lot of coal jobs created and there aren't that many jobs in coal in the US (about 84,000). There are way more jobs in clean energy than in coal. There are way more jobs in nat gas than in coal. So it's not about Jobs. Is it about profits? Lots of businesses were against this. Amazingly enough even some coal mining businesses were against this. So I don't think it's about profits. So then it's about nothing. Add on top of that that people that make/use clean energy love clean energy. People in Nevada can't put solar panels on their roofs fast enough and Iowans can't get enough of wind. Those states aren't exactly left wing bastions.

 

Whatever is going on makes very little sense. Even if you assume that the current administration is selfish, transnational, "greed is good" type, what is achieved? Where is the gain? Exiting Paris accord, don't get something in return. What was gained by poking allies in the eye? Nothing. This week the gov't returned to Russia sites under sanctions because they were used to gather intelligence. Did Russia provide anything in return? Nope. There are no transactions here. It's just doing belligerent stuff just cause you can do it.

[LC]

Its not about anything rational. The dude is just playing to his base of voters.

[Parsad]

You are not dealing with a rational adult human being.  This guy is a petulant, spoiled, entitled, brat who doesn't play well with others.  He's a bully, a whiner, egotistical and frankly, an idiot. 

 

What he is good at is pushing and bullying his way around the school yard, and when given the power to do so, he doesn't mind taking his toys away from other kids and going home. His mommy and daddy have always told him how wonderful he was, how clever, handsome and talented he is and that there is no one in the world like him!  He surrounds himself with sycophants and fires those that don't feel the same way.  He was raised to worry about himself first...nothing wrong with that necessarily, and why it resonates with so many other like-minded people.

 

So this is what we will see for the next few years, unless he is impeached or croaks.  He will bully, lecture and cry, and then he will pull out of agreement after agreement, until others are forced to terms that he thinks are worth closing the deal on.  He did this his whole life and he will do it to the rest of the world.  America will benefit in the short-term, but will suffer in the long-term.  This is not a man of vision or inclusiveness, but short-sighted, exclusory ideals.

 

And it's easy to blame the Republicans or the voters you don't agree with, but he's in the position he's in because of the elitist, liberal mentality and alienating, conservative leaders that came before him that created this massive rift in society today.  Those that voted for him believe he is anti-establishment, when in fact Trump is something far worse...he's chaos!  Cheers!   

[Cardboard]

Next step is to build 10,000 to 15,000 of these ICBM interceptors and tell the world to fight their own battles. CO2 and socialism will be history in no time.

 

Regarding stupidity, hard to beat the majority of B.C. who is even opposed to an hydro power dam!

 

Cardboard

 

[Packer16]

IMO the climate debate misses the larger point.  There are two issues here being conflated as one.  The first is about the effects of CO2 on the atmosphere.  I think given no economic impact everyone agrees the less CO2 the better.  Here you need to seperate what the biased press reports about folks & their actual views.  Second is the issue of the actual impact & the cost to mitigate.  This is the real issue.  Most of the press & others think that since  A is true we should spend trillions of dollars to prevent an unknown outcome.  This IMO is Trumps point that no one is addressing.  How rationale is B if we have other uses of the resources that have more bang for the buck.  I also hate to see science highjacked for political & monetary gain.  What you hear is a reaction of the environmental industrial complex.

 

Packer

[rkbabang]

A friend of mine described him as a blind squirrel.  I think that is an apt description.  Luckily the blind squirrel stumbles in the correct direction from time to time, not often, but it happens.  This is one of those times.

 

[jeffmori7]

I don't get why people here who can be so rational about finance, margin of safety, etc. want to take such a high risk without hedging at all...Considering the probability that things could go really bad, it doesn't seem to be a bad decision to do the most to make sure the highly risky scenarios don't happen!

[Nnejad]

I don't think those numbers for B are right, though. You could replace all of our nation's coal with NG/wind/solar for probably about 600B (assuming an average of $2M per MW of capacity). Maybe it's 900B, but whatever. That's a one time cost. It's not more expensive after that. Actually, the latest numbers point to these three generation types being slightly cheaper on an all-in basis, and significantly cheaper excluding the initial capital outlay:

https://www.lazard.com/media/438038/levelized-cost-of-energy-v100.pdf

 

600B, one-time, is a drop in the bucket, so what's the real economic cost?

[DooDiligence]

Kind of off topic but kind of not too.

 

At 1st, I was PO'd when he elbowed Montenegro but then I read up on them & thought, "hell, they deserve a few elbows."

 

I just don't believe he even knew who he was bullying (oblivious, once again...)

[Packer16]

If it economically cheaper then why are subsidies required to support the technologies?  I am all for the cheaper sources winning but the actual spending of dollars that benefit primarily the rich & fund an industrial complex are my main issue.  If it is that cheap let the market decide when to make the switch without tax payer assisstance.

 

Packer

[Cardboard]

Exactly Packer!

 

If all the manipulative forces were out of the way: subsidies, taxes, government interference, Middle East interventions, etc. we would be much closer to clean energy.

 

Cardboard

[Uccmal]

If it economically cheaper then why are subsidies required to support the technologies?  I am all for the cheaper sources winning but the actual spending of dollars that benefit primarily the rich & fund an industrial complex are my main issue.  If it is that cheap let the market decide when to make the switch without tax payer assisstance.

 

Packer

 

Should we start by removing all the subsidies for coal, oil, and gas?  Your doing partial economics. 

 

Its fine by me, if the US wants to bypass all future tech. development and let the rest of the world profit from it instead.  If someone doesn't rein this idiot in, then the US will find itself behind the 8 ball a few years down the road, when it gets screwed over by everyone else. 

 

This outcome is beyond appalling.  Fortunately, there are others in the US, corporate, and government who are going to circumvent this nonsense.  It wouldn't surprise me if a few states and mayors decided to go it alone or together and go to climate talks without the US. 

 

Anyone who supports this should be aware that Trump doesn't actually read or know anything.  95% of the government positions go unfilled. 

[Nnejad]

They probably aren't anymore, and they're being largely phased out by 2022. Five years ago they certainly were required, but wasn't it worth it? If I had to take another guess, we probably offered 150B of subsidies over the last five years. Let's also be clear, these were primarily in the form of tax credits, not actual cash outlays.

[DooDiligence]

Real or fake news?

 

http://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/opinion/the-conversation/sd-cities-states-against-trump-climate-decision-20170601-htmlstory.html

 

the letter with a list of signatory's

 

https://medium.com/@ClimateMayors/climate-mayors-commit-to-adopt-honor-and-uphold-paris-climate-agreement-goals-ba566e260097

[Uccmal]

Exactly Packer!

 

If all the manipulative forces were out of the way: subsidies, taxes, government interference, Middle East interventions, etc. we would be much closer to clean energy.

 

Cardboard

 

And Trump is somehow accomplishing this?  The guy doesn't have a clue. 

 

See my comment about removing subsidies on oil, gas, and coal as well. 

 

And Cardboard, you do realize that Trump pulling out of this accord is torpedoing the price of oil, and your oil stocks along with it. 

[Cigarbutt]

The issues are perhaps not so clear cut.

Historically, the US has benefitted from isolationism or non-interventionism.

Many vested interests on all sides. What Packer16 refers too:" I also hate to see science highjacked for political & monetary gain.  What you hear is a reaction of the environmental industrial complex" is clearly a factor to consider.

I find that what Mr. Rex Tillerson has said, over the years, concerning policies to reduce emissions (even considering a carbon tax!) is perhaps relevant coming from the CEO of ExxonMobil who has become a key member of government.

I think it is possible to have rational and respectful discussions around these issues.

Maybe, the first step is to determine the validity of the claims.

Are we talking about a "hoax", "myth" or "nonsense".

Link:

http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/11/4/048002

I submit that there is a clear scientific consensus related to human-caused global warming.

Starting from a rational base, we can try to quantify costs and alternatives.

My understanding of the Paris Accord is that it represented a step in the right direction.

Personal note (Latin was imposed on me in high school): the root of the word courage is cor. Cor means heart. That's why heart is coeur in French, corazon in Spanish and cuore in Italian. I like to think that courage is a heart word.

 

 

[clutch]

I believe we need to do something about global warming, as a moral obligation and a potential means to maximize the human race's survival. But the way the Left is trying to convince the rest of the world has become really ridiculous. And I partially blame them for this kind of outcome.

 

Let me give you an absurd statement from Greenpeace:

 

"There’s no more debating if climate change is a reality. Scientists agree: the world is getting warmer and human activity is largely responsible."

 

Source: http://www.greenpeace.org/usa/global-warming/climate-science/

 

- The second sentence is basically implying that climate change is a scientific fact because scientists agree. Since when did we accept something as a scientific fact based on consensus? You will notice in the greenpeace page that they describe the greenhouse effect to explain the climate change in Earth. Well, is this hypothesis scientifically proven?

 

One should easily recognize that there is no way we can prove such a claim. One would have to create two planets (or equivalent models) in same conditions as Earth, create CO2 driven greenhouse effect on one planet, and show that it significantly contributes to warming compared to the second one. We obviously cannot do this.

 

So what these "scientists" resort to is a bunch of descriptive statistics such as how much correlation is there (not causation) between CO2 and temperature, how fast is ice melting, how frequent is extreme weather happening ... These can be evidences but they are NOT evidences that can be used to accept / reject the original hypothesis! And yet they throw out a statement like "scientists agree that climate change is due to human activity"? What have learned in their PhD training??

 

- Then the first sentence: "There is no more debating". WTF! So you use supposedly scientific arguments to establish climate change is a reality, yet you say there is no debate? Any scientific fact should be refutable and tried to be disapproved. Who are you to say there is no more debating? Doesn't this sound like religious extremists saying you should never doubt the holy words or that Earth is flat?

 

-------------------

 

Now here is the thing, we don't need to use science to convince people to do something about climate change (I hear rationalists gasping). What we need to do is to frame this issue as an moral issue and convince enough people that caring about our climate is a morally good thing to do. Same as treating others as you want to be treated is a morally good thing to do! These are what I consider as moral truths, different from scientific truths that you validate / falsify empirically, but just as if not more important than scientific truths because they have held together the humanity for millions of years (consider how long scientific truths have been in play in contrast). If you are talking to a religious zealot, tell him/her the story of Tower of Babel or any flood myth to remind them the consequences of human hubris and that climate change is exactly the same story repeating itself again! But Left is in a dilemma because such a way convincing people is archaic and irrational.  ;D And they dug themselves this trap of using pseudo scientific arguments in trying to convince people, while turning their false truth as something that cannot be refuted!

 

-------------------

 

Aside: And now I see this...

 

"France, Italy, Germany defend Paris Accord, say cannot be renegotiated"

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-climatechange-eu-idUSKBN18S6GN

 

Again, have these people completely turned into totalitarians when it comes to climate (much like saying "there is no more debating") that things cannot be renegotiated?? What if Trump's claims that US is unfairly constrained by Paris Accord are true? (which by the way nobody is mentioning here - Trump wants to renegotiate because the current deal is unfair. There is still a possibility for us to globally agree on something, on a more fair ground.) So because you signed a deal that gets biggest contributions from the biggest player and you are happy with it (same shit going on with NATO, btw), you are forever closed about renegotiating the deal? Well, that sounds very altruistic!

 

 

 

 

 

[DooDiligence]

Not to worry, God will sort it out (Q is, which God?)

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2017/06/02/why-dont-christian-conservatives-worry-about-climate-change-god/?utm_term=.89f047f8e736

[jeffmori7]

I believe we need to do something about global warming, as a moral obligation and a potential means to maximize the human race's survival. But the way the Left is trying to convince the rest of the world has become really ridiculous. And I partially blame them for this kind of outcome.

 

Let me give you an absurd statement from Greenpeace:

 

"There’s no more debating if climate change is a reality. Scientists agree: the world is getting warmer and human activity is largely responsible."

 

Source: http://www.greenpeace.org/usa/global-warming/climate-science/

 

- The second sentence is basically implying that climate change is a scientific fact because scientists agree. Since when did we accept something as a scientific fact based on consensus? You will notice in the greenpeace page that they describe the greenhouse effect to explain the climate change in Earth. Well, is this hypothesis scientifically proven?

 

One should easily recognize that there is no way we can prove such a claim. One would have to create two planets (or equivalent models) in same conditions as Earth, create CO2 driven greenhouse effect on one planet, and show that it significantly contributes to warming compared to the second one. We obviously cannot do this.

 

So what these "scientists" resort to is a bunch of descriptive statistics such as how much correlation is there (not causation) between CO2 and temperature, how fast is ice melting, how frequent is extreme weather happening ... These can be evidences but they are NOT evidences that can be used to accept / reject the original hypothesis! And yet they throw out a statement like "scientists agree that climate change is due to human activity"? What have learned in their PhD training??

 

- Then the first sentence: "There is no more debating". WTF! So you use supposedly scientific arguments to establish climate change is a reality, yet you say there is no debate? Any scientific fact should be refutable and tried to be disapproved. Who are you to say there is no more debating? Doesn't this sound like religious extremists saying you should never doubt the holy words or that Earth is flat?

 

-------------------

 

Now here is the thing, we don't need to use science to convince people to do something about climate change (I hear rationalists gasping). What we need to do is to frame this issue as an moral issue and convince enough people that caring about our climate is a morally good thing to do. Same as treating others as you want to be treated is a morally good thing to do! These are what I consider as moral truths, different from scientific truths that you validate / falsify empirically, but just as if not more important than scientific truths because they have held together the humanity for millions of years (consider how long scientific truths have been in play in contrast). If you are talking to a religious zealot, tell him/her the story of Tower of Babel or any flood myth to remind them the consequences of human hubris and that climate change is exactly the same story repeating itself again! But Left is in a dilemma because such a way convincing people is archaic and irrational.  ;D And they dug themselves this trap of using pseudo scientific arguments in trying to convince people, while turning their false truth as something that cannot be refuted!

 

-------------------

 

Aside: And now I see this...

 

"France, Italy, Germany defend Paris Accord, say cannot be renegotiated"

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-climatechange-eu-idUSKBN18S6GN

 

Again, have these people completely turned into totalitarians when it comes to climate (much like saying "there is no more debating") that things cannot be renegotiated?? What if Trump's claims that US is unfairly constrained by Paris Accord are true? (which by the way nobody is mentioning here - Trump wants to renegotiate because the current deal is unfair. There is still a possibility for us to globally agree on something, on a more fair ground.) So because you signed a deal that gets biggest contributions from the biggest player and you are happy with it (same shit going on with NATO, btw), you are forever closed about renegotiating the deal? Well, that sounds very altruistic!

 

The problem is that you don't get the science. You should just talk to climatologists or physicists about that. You don't need a second planet to prove that a gas like CO2 is a greenhouse gas that will trap heat. What is complicated is the sensitivity in the response of the whole system to this increased amount of energy stored in the system. Models are getting better and better, there are of course uncertainties, but this doesn't validate the output at all, just give you a range of output. But all the models point toward the same direction, and we don't want to test the whole thing to see if the extreme events will happen.

 

Oh, and once again, science has nothing to do with left or right. People could debate on the way to tackle climate change, but could we at least agree to work in the same direction?

[Paarslaars]

Don't worry guys, our planet will be fine!

It just won't be habitable anymore  ;)