PDA

View Full Version : Trump pulls out of Paris



moahunter
01-06-2017, 02:04 PM
It must be quite a shock for the Liberal elite / establishment, to see a President who does, what he what he said he was going to do.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/donald-trump-to-exit-paris-climate-deal-officials-say-1496343854


President Donald Trump announced Thursday afternoon that he has decided to withdraw the U.S. from the Paris climate accord, which he said is “very unfair” to American workers and costing jobs.

After his initial announcement was interrupted by applause from guests in the White House Rose Garden, Mr. Trump quickly said he would “begin negotiations to re-enter either the Paris accord or really an entirely new transaction on terms that are fair to the U.S., its businesses, its workers, its people, it’s taxpayers.”

“So we’re getting out, but we will start to negotiate and we will see if we can make a deal that’s fair,” the president said. “And if we can, that’s great.”


Framing the decision mostly in economic and political terms, the president focused on the benefits for the world’s other leading carbon-emitters, China and India, while stating his concern for protecting the environment and eschewing any reiteration of his past claims that climate change isn’t real.

“This agreement is less about the climate and more about other countries gaining a financial advantage over the U.S.,” Mr. Trump said.

Watch what happens - even more private capital into the US now - that's where the financial returns are.

Edmonton PRT
01-06-2017, 02:12 PM
Must have been a shocker for Ivanka who supports the Paris accord...


As does major US corporations including oil companies, and the rest of the World.

well at least Virginia coal miners are happy...

http://media.vocativ.com/photos/2014/09/Black-Lung_023350763267.jpg

Hilman
01-06-2017, 02:20 PM
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DBQu-Y-VoAAxZam.jpg

noodle
01-06-2017, 02:25 PM
http://ritholtz.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/shareholder-value.png

noodle
01-06-2017, 02:37 PM
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DBGuQC-UAAAm3GL.jpg

https://twitter.com/YaleClimateComm/status/869667884167036928/photo/1?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw

Edmonton PRT
01-06-2017, 02:42 PM
Trump just betrayed the world. Now the world will fight back.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/trump-just-betrayed-the-world-now-the-world-will-fight-back/2017/06/01/3c0b8026-46e7-11e7-a196-a1bb629f64cb_story.html?utm_term=.df77902b07b0


Todd Stern, a visiting lecturer at Yale Law School, was U.S. special envoy for climate change from 2009 to 2016.

President Trump has made a colossal mistake in deciding to withdraw from the Paris climate agreement. There is simply no case for withdrawal, other than a desire to double down on an ill-informed campaign promise, while the case for staying in is overwhelming. But damaging as it is, this decision is not the beginning of the end for efforts to contain climate change. The world decided in Paris to confront the climate threat, and it is not turning back.


Around the world, climate change is a metastasizing danger, for some countries even an existential threat. It was understood in the years leading up to the Paris negotiation that the climate challenge could be met only with a new kind of agreement premised on concerted effort by all. That agreement — ambitious, universal, transparent, balanced — was reached in Paris, with the help of U.S. leadership every step of the way.

Trump’s decision will be seen as an ugly betrayal — self-centered, callous, hollow, cruel. The ravages of climate change have been on display in recent years in the superstorms, floods, rising sea levels, droughts, fires and killing heat waves that will only get worse as the carbon index mounts. Vulnerable countries will look at the United States, the richest power on Earth, the largest historic emitter of greenhouse gases, and think — even if they do not say — how dare you?

Former president Barack Obama once said to business leaders, in a Roosevelt Room meeting I attended, that climate change was the one threat, other than nuclear weapons, with the potential to alter the course of human progress. A near-consensus of major U.S. companies urged the Trump administration to stay in the agreement because they know climate change is real, that the Paris agreement is a good and balanced deal, that their own concerns on matters such as intellectual property and trade will only be defended if U.S. negotiators are at the table and that turning the United States into a climate-change pariah — will be bad for business, for access to markets and for investment. But our chief executive president decided to leave U.S. business in the lurch.

But let’s be clear: This is not the end of the line. This is a call to arms.


Countries won’t follow Trump out of the Paris climate agreement and over a cliff. They won’t give Trump the satisfaction of “canceling” the agreement, as he promised during his campaign. They will want to show that they can carry on without the United States.

MrOilers
01-06-2017, 02:45 PM
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DBQu-Y-VoAAxZam.jpg


Well I don't need to see any further evidence than this to see that that these international non-committal "climate change" agreements are anything more than a mechanism for global wealth redistribution.

Edmonton PRT
01-06-2017, 03:00 PM
Instead, the 1 percent of Americans are happy, living in their offshore tax free havens while we choke on coal emissions...

Meanwhile China is shutting down 100 coal fired power plants.

China’s Coal Fleet Will Soon Be More Efficient Than America’s
China continues to close down older coal plants. And the newer ones are some of the most efficient on the planet.
https://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/chinas-coal-fleet-will-soon-be-more-efficient-than-americas


http://www.ucsusa.org/assets/images/ce/Ripe-for-Retirement-Map-Full-Size.jpg

Dave
01-06-2017, 03:01 PM
Trump just betrayed the world. Now the world will fight back.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/trump-just-betrayed-the-world-now-the-world-will-fight-back/2017/06/01/3c0b8026-46e7-11e7-a196-a1bb629f64cb_story.html?utm_term=.df77902b07b0


Todd Stern, a visiting lecturer at Yale Law School, was U.S. special envoy for climate change from 2009 to 2016.

President Trump has made a colossal mistake in deciding to withdraw from the Paris climate agreement. There is simply no case for withdrawal, other than a desire to double down on an ill-informed campaign promise, while the case for staying in is overwhelming. But damaging as it is, this decision is not the beginning of the end for efforts to contain climate change. The world decided in Paris to confront the climate threat, and it is not turning back.


Around the world, climate change is a metastasizing danger, for some countries even an existential threat. It was understood in the years leading up to the Paris negotiation that the climate challenge could be met only with a new kind of agreement premised on concerted effort by all. That agreement — ambitious, universal, transparent, balanced — was reached in Paris, with the help of U.S. leadership every step of the way.

Trump’s decision will be seen as an ugly betrayal — self-centered, callous, hollow, cruel. The ravages of climate change have been on display in recent years in the superstorms, floods, rising sea levels, droughts, fires and killing heat waves that will only get worse as the carbon index mounts. Vulnerable countries will look at the United States, the richest power on Earth, the largest historic emitter of greenhouse gases, and think — even if they do not say — how dare you?

Former president Barack Obama once said to business leaders, in a Roosevelt Room meeting I attended, that climate change was the one threat, other than nuclear weapons, with the potential to alter the course of human progress. A near-consensus of major U.S. companies urged the Trump administration to stay in the agreement because they know climate change is real, that the Paris agreement is a good and balanced deal, that their own concerns on matters such as intellectual property and trade will only be defended if U.S. negotiators are at the table and that turning the United States into a climate-change pariah — will be bad for business, for access to markets and for investment. But our chief executive president decided to leave U.S. business in the lurch.

But let’s be clear: This is not the end of the line. This is a call to arms.


Countries won’t follow Trump out of the Paris climate agreement and over a cliff. They won’t give Trump the satisfaction of “canceling” the agreement, as he promised during his campaign. They will want to show that they can carry on without the United States.



I agree, I think this will be a tipping point. Over the last year, most western countries have gone from viewing the US as a friend and strong ally, to recently unreliable and I think they have just moved further into another category - obstacle to the common good.

I think even China realizes the folly here. The Chinese leader just got a warm welcome in Germany earlier this week. The US now will largely be on its own, isolated and its influence will continue to diminish. The rest of the western countries and the world will move on without it. The rest of the world is really not happy with the US now and some point soon there will be a painful reckoning or realization for the US that this matters.

Hilman
01-06-2017, 03:05 PM
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DBQu-Y-VoAAxZam.jpg


Well I don't need to see any further evidence than this to see that that these international non-committal "climate change" agreements are anything more than a mechanism for global wealth redistribution.

This was ALL Obama's doing though ;)

moahunter
01-06-2017, 03:36 PM
Well, we can watch more capital, more jobs, going south now. Why would you invest in Canada, why would you put a manufacturing plant in a City you know is going to face ever increasing electricity and gas costs over time as the carbon taxes ratchet up, when you can invest in the US and not have to worry about that (or for that matter China, or other Paris countries that aren't actually implementing it / don't have carbon taxes)?

noodle
01-06-2017, 03:40 PM
Principles?

noodle
01-06-2017, 03:46 PM
Well, <1/5 of the population with >1/5 the US GDP looks to have opted back in...



https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DBRDVmUWAAU6S4m.jpg

Highlander II
01-06-2017, 03:47 PM
Long term vision? Understanding that this is a short-term anomaly? Being in an industry where energy is less than half your inputs and labour costs like health insurance are more important?

noodle
01-06-2017, 03:48 PM
Ottawa, Ontario


June 1, 2017



The Prime Minister, Justin Trudeau, today issued the following statement in response to the United States’ decision to withdraw from the Paris Agreement:
“We are deeply disappointed that the United States federal government has decided to withdraw from the Paris Agreement. Canada is unwavering in our commitment to fight climate change and support clean economic growth. Canadians know we need to take decisive and collective action to tackle the many harsh realities of our changing climate.
“While the U.S. decision is disheartening, we remain inspired by the growing momentum around the world to combat climate change and transition to clean growth economies. We are proud that Canada stands united with all the other parties that support the Agreement. We will continue to work with our domestic and international partners to drive progress on one of the greatest challenges we face as a world.
“This is not only about the huge economic opportunities of clean growth and the need to address the pressing threats of climate change. This is about an ambitious and unshakeable desire to leave a cleaner, healthier and more sustainable planet for our kids and for generations to come.
“We are all custodians of this world, and that is why Canada will continue to work with the U.S. at the state level, and with other U.S. stakeholders, to address climate change and promote clean growth. We will also continue to reach out to the U.S. federal government to discuss this matter of critical importance for all humankind, and to identify areas of shared interest for collaboration, including on emissions reductions.”

http://pm.gc.ca/eng/news/2017/06/01/statement-prime-minister-canada-response-united-states-decision-withdraw-paris

moahunter
01-06-2017, 03:52 PM
Principles?
Principals won't pay for your food in retirement, but the money you made as opposed to lost, on your investments, will.

Dave
01-06-2017, 03:54 PM
Well, we can watch more capital, more jobs, going south now. Why would you invest in Canada, why would you put a manufacturing plant in a City you know is going to face ever increasing electricity and gas costs over time as the carbon taxes ratchet up, when you can invest in the US and not have to worry about that (or for that matter China, or other Paris countries that aren't actually implementing it / don't have carbon taxes)?

Businesses make decisions on where to build major facilities and make large investments based on the long term not the short term. Yesterday the US was part of that agreement, today it is not. There will be another election in the US in four year - oh sorry, in less than two years - they have them much more often than us. Even if it gives a temporary advantage (which I think is not necessarily the case), a political decision such as that can be easily changed and may not be long lasting.

Also US states and cities have their own environmental policies and regulations that the US government can not necessarily change and they seem to be moving in the opposite direction from Trump.

If anything I think one of the reactions of the rest of the world to the US decision will be to put up trade barriers to US goods based on environmental regulations. A business that builds a facility in the US may find they lose access to some foreign markets (especially European ones) because of this. Unfortunately, the US has no trade agreement with Europe it can threaten to tear up. The US has a lot of companies that do business internationally that understand all the ramifications of this, which is why they were opposed to what Trump just did.

moahunter
01-06-2017, 03:56 PM
^nice theory, but not what's happening, the money is flowing into the US on mass, unemployment is at record lows (about half of most Canadian provinces), and GDP is soaring. If anything the threat of trade barriers is encouraging investment in the US, because its the most wealthy consumer market in the world to be part of.

noodle
01-06-2017, 03:56 PM
Principles?
Principals won't pay for your food in retirement, but the money you made as opposed to lost, on your investments, will.

Actually, I've always prided myself on being an ethical investor. I'll be speaking with my broker when I get back from Sweden to ensure that I'm still comfortable with what's in my portfolio & ensure that it matches my morals & ethics. I don't sell my principles out for an easy buck.

Dave
01-06-2017, 03:58 PM
Principles?
Principals won't pay for your food in retirement, but the money you made as opposed to lost, on your investments, will.

If we have destroyed our environment, those nice pieces of paper with pictures of the Queen on them are not going to save us. We only have one planet to live on unless all your money can buy you a ticket to Mars or something.

Dave
01-06-2017, 04:07 PM
^nice theory, but not what's happening, the money is flowing into the US on mass, unemployment is at record lows (about half of most Canadian provinces), and GDP is soaring. If anything the threat of trade barriers is encouraging investment in the US, because its the most wealthy consumer market in the world to be part of.

You are referring to data from the past to support a decision that has just been made today. I see a flaw in the logic. Lets see what the numbers look like in six months or a year.

But if you really want to cite those statistics, Canada, Japan Germany and France's economic growth was actually higher in the last quarter than the US. So following your logic their trade barriers must be working better for us than them.

Edmonton PRT
01-06-2017, 04:10 PM
French President makes a speech about Trump pulling out of the Paris Accord.

He invites American scientists and engineers to come and work with them.

He concludes his eloquent speech, "Make the Planet Great Again"

DanC
01-06-2017, 04:14 PM
Principles?
Principals won't pay for your food in retirement, but the money you made as opposed to lost, on your investments, will.
And money won't buy the future of this planet for our species to live on.
That is the most short sighted and egocentric statement I've see in a while. Impressive in your double down of pure capitalism at all cost rhetoric.
Honestly, the fact that you vehemently oppose becoming ultimately more efficient, boggles my mind.

moahunter
01-06-2017, 04:18 PM
Honestly, the fact that you vehemently oppose becoming ultimately more efficient, boggles my mind.
Where did I say that? I'm totally in favor of more efficient. If you can build in Canada, and have a more efficient production cost than the US, that's great. I don't think that's going to possible for many manufacturers though, given how our electricity and gas is going through the roof in price. It makes more sense to be more efficient there - and that's what we are seeing with business right now. There will be a transition away from fossil fuels, when the technology exists to make it economic. Not when a bunch of politicians or green activities think it can magically happen - companies won't survive long enough to see that future if their costs of production are twice what their competitors are in the US. Our Canadian unemployment rates relative to the US reflects that reality.

MrOilers
01-06-2017, 04:20 PM
8 hours ago it was 16C here in Edmonton. Now that Trump pulled the USA from the Paris accord, it is 24C. If you do the math, by this time tomorrow it will be a sweltering 48C!!!

MrOilers
01-06-2017, 04:22 PM
Heard on the radio this afternoon that since China - the world's largest polluter by far - is considered a "developing country" (by the Paris Accord definition), they will be allowed to increase emissions until 2030 while receiving money from "developed" countries.

I am all for less pollution and preserving the environment, but these international agreements are a joke.

moahunter
01-06-2017, 04:23 PM
French President makes a speech about Trump pulling out of the Paris Accord.

He invites American scientists and engineers to come and work with them.

He concludes his eloquent speech, "Make the Planet Great Again"
Funny how France dropped their plans for a carbon tax... the only difference between France and the US, is that US tells the truth, whereas France and China and other countries "say" they are doing something, but don't. Canada is one of the only "boy-scout" countries stupid enough to be sabotaging their economy / sending industry elsewhere, by taxing this natural substance (carbon - which is the basis of all life, and carbon dioxide, which is the food of plants / trees).

Edmonton PRT
01-06-2017, 04:29 PM
8 hours ago it was 16C here in Edmonton. Now that Trump pulled the USA from the Paris accord, it is 24C. If you do the math, by this time tomorrow it will be a sweltering 48C!!!

We are all simply amazed by your knowledge of science and math.

Who knew?

H.L.
01-06-2017, 04:30 PM
French President makes a speech about Trump pulling out of the Paris Accord.

He invites American scientists and engineers to come and work with them.

He concludes his eloquent speech, "Make the Planet Great Again"
Funny how France dropped their plans for a carbon tax... the only difference between France and the US, is that US tells the truth, whereas France and China and other countries "say" they are doing something, but don't. Canada is one of the only "boy-scout" countries stupid enough to be sabotaging their economy / sending industry elsewhere, by taxing this natural substance (carbon - which is the basis of all life, and carbon dioxide, which is the food of plants / trees).

Elon Musk, Mr 5 billion subsidies is upset.OMG will he make it on his own? Yes, Canada will be the only one, to some we will look awesome, but they dont have to live here..

H.L.
01-06-2017, 04:31 PM
Heard on the radio this afternoon that since China - the world's largest polluter by far - is considered a "developing country" (by the Paris Accord definition), they will be allowed to increase emissions until 2030 while receiving money from "developed" countries.

I am all for less pollution and preserving the environment, but these international agreements are a joke.

This is what I dont understand..that is just ridiculous.

Highlander II
01-06-2017, 04:49 PM
I Know, China's emissions are way to high, they should not be allowed to increase them. And to be logically consistent and not just deflecting selfish arse-holes I'm sure that you're fully behind cutting Canada's per capita emissions down to china's level immediately. It's only a 50% cut, we can do it!!!

Dave
01-06-2017, 04:54 PM
Honestly, the fact that you vehemently oppose becoming ultimately more efficient, boggles my mind.
Where did I say that? I'm totally in favor of more efficient. If you can build in Canada, and have a more efficient production cost than the US, that's great. I don't think that's going to possible for many manufacturers though, given how our electricity and gas is going through the roof in price. It makes more sense to be more efficient there - and that's what we are seeing with business right now. There will be a transition away from fossil fuels, when the technology exists to make it economic. Not when a bunch of politicians or green activities think it can magically happen - companies won't survive long enough to see that future if their costs of production are twice what their competitors are in the US. Our Canadian unemployment rates relative to the US reflects that reality.

It's not hard to cherry pick costs to support an argument it is more expensive in one place than the other. For instance, US auto makers have long said the high cost of US health care was a big problem for them. In Canada, that was not a problem. Some costs are higher in Canada, but some others are higher in the US and that should not be ignored either.

Also, electricity costs vary a lot across Canada. Ontario seems to have higher costs now, in part because of expensive nuclear plant refurbishments. In many other provinces, including Alberta, electricity is much cheaper. Anyways, as manufacturing becomes more efficient, I think it will be less energy intensive so I don't think energy costs will be as big of a concern in the future as it might have been 20 or 30 years ago.

The difference between the Canadian and US unemployment rates has generally existed for many years and isn't something recent. I think it has more to do with how the unemployed are counted in the US vs. Canada. I understand there are a number of people who are not working in the US are not counted as unemployed, whereas under the Canadian method they would be.

Edmonton PRT
01-06-2017, 05:01 PM
Trump wanted to renegotiate the Paris Accord. The other countries said, NO!

So much for Trump's negotiating skills.

Medwards
01-06-2017, 05:11 PM
Economic sanctions should be made against the USA for pulling out.

Dave
01-06-2017, 05:12 PM
Trump wanted to renegotiate the Paris Accord. The other countries said, NO!

So much for Trump's negotiating skills.

He apparently wanted to negotiate a free trade agreement with Germany too, asked Merkel 10 times and she said NO too. Apparently nothing personal, but Trump missed the little detail that Germany is part of the EU so it does not negotiate international trade agreements. Merkel explained to him that all such negotiation goes through the EU. Who knew? Oh right, Canada just did it that way.

At least we can't say Trump didn't learn something new on his trip abroad, but he might have made a better impression if he was more up on this beforehand.

H.L.
01-06-2017, 05:16 PM
I Know, China's emissions are way to high, they should not be allowed to increase them. And to be logically consistent and not just deflecting selfish arse-holes I'm sure that you're fully behind cutting Canada's per capita emissions down to china's level immediately. It's only a 50% cut, we can do it!!!

Plus France dropped their carbon tax, why?

H.L.
01-06-2017, 05:18 PM
If its bad for the US he said he would drop it, he kept a promise.

Edmonton PRT
01-06-2017, 05:24 PM
What he says and what are the facts, are a point of debate. How many scientists and economists did he discuss this with before his decision?

The consequences to the World's climate is the effect.

moahunter
01-06-2017, 05:27 PM
The consequences to the World's climate is the effect.
None - nobody else aside from Canada and a handful of other countries are implementing it anyway, and even Canada's efforts were a fraction of what would be required to meet the target (a $200 carbon tax, not a $20 one). Even the truck load of regulations Obama bought in were doing squat. The world consumes more oil today than it ever has, and that consumption is increasing. Production has never been higher, and reserves are exceptional thanks to new technologies that open up every field ever drilled for a new round of extraction. Paris is a total failure, pretending it means something, and suggesting Trump withdrawing from Paris will have an impact (other than saving the US billions in wasted subsidies to other countries), is nonsense.

East McCauley
01-06-2017, 05:35 PM
I Know, China's emissions are way to high, they should not be allowed to increase them. And to be logically consistent and not just deflecting selfish arse-holes I'm sure that you're fully behind cutting Canada's per capita emissions down to china's level immediately. It's only a 50% cut, we can do it!!!

Plus France dropped their carbon tax, why?

True but misleading. France - like all countries in the EU - already taxes fossil fuels much more heavily than Alberta does even with a carbon tax.

That's why gasoline prices in France are about double those in Alberta.

https://www.numbeo.com/gas-prices/country_result.jsp?country=France&displayCurrency=CAD

kkozoriz
01-06-2017, 05:51 PM
Trump wanted to renegotiate the Paris Accord. The other countries said, NO!

So much for Trump's negotiating skills.

He apparently wanted to negotiate a free trade agreement with Germany too, asked Merkel 10 times and she said NO too. Apparently nothing personal, but Trump missed the little detail that Germany is part of the EU so it does not negotiate international trade agreements. Merkel explained to him that all such negotiation goes through the EU. Who knew? Oh right, Canada just did it that way.

At least we can't say Trump didn't learn something new on his trip abroad, but he might have made a better impression if he was more up on this beforehand.

And not just once. Merkel had to tell him 11 times.



"Ten times Trump asked [German chancellor Angela Merkel] if he could negotiate a trade deal with Germany. Every time she replied, 'You can’t do a trade deal with Germany, only the EU,'" the official said.


They continued: "On the eleventh refusal, Trump finally got the message, 'Oh, we’ll do a deal with Europe then.'"


Merkel reportedly told her cabinet members that Trump had "very basic misunderstandings" on the "fundamentals" of the EU and trade.

http://www.businessinsider.com/trump-trade-merkel-germany-eu-2017-4

Drumbones
01-06-2017, 05:52 PM
Does this mean that more tarsand oil will be accepted into the USA bolstering the economy of our region where we actually live and make our paychecks. I feel happy for the poorest states that mine coal and would have been devastated, maybe an agreement can be made where these areas would be top of the list for green jobs before they take their economy away. Maybe trump was thinking of that and these people. A new agreement with the promise of jobs to replace theirs plus more in these areas, and maybe Alberta's too.

Dave
01-06-2017, 05:58 PM
Does this mean that more tarsand oil will be accepted into the USA bolstering the economy of our region where we actually live and make our paychecks. I feel happy for the poorest states that mine coal and would have been devastated, maybe an agreement can be made where these areas would be top of the list for green jobs before they take their economy away. Maybe trump was thinking of that and these people. A new agreement with the promise of jobs to replace theirs plus more in these areas, and maybe Alberta's too.

I doubt that Trump thinks much about Alberta's welfare. His interests seem to be just the US and maybe after that places that have a Trump Hotel or golf course. No Trump Hotel in Alberta. I think we might be right after Albania in his mental filing system.

AShetsen
01-06-2017, 06:00 PM
Economic sanctions should be made against the USA for pulling out.

Does that include trips to Vegas?

Edmonton PRT
01-06-2017, 06:01 PM
The consequences to the World's climate is the effect.
None - nobody else aside from Canada and a handful of other countries are implementing it anyway, .

Just where do you get your information?

There are only three countries that did not sign the Accord. Syria, Nicaragua and Trumpland.

DanC
01-06-2017, 06:51 PM
Honestly, the fact that you vehemently oppose becoming ultimately more efficient, boggles my mind.
Where did I say that? I'm totally in favor of more efficient. If you can build in Canada, and have a more efficient production cost than the US, that's great. I don't think that's going to possible for many manufacturers though, given how our electricity and gas is going through the roof in price. It makes more sense to be more efficient there - and that's what we are seeing with business right now. There will be a transition away from fossil fuels, when the technology exists to make it economic. Not when a bunch of politicians or green activities think it can magically happen - companies won't survive long enough to see that future if their costs of production are twice what their competitors are in the US. Our Canadian unemployment rates relative to the US reflects that reality.
Reducing greenhouse is ultimately about being more efficient. That's what these policies do, they force innovation.
The US can be a laggard for dieing industries that are heavy polluters.
Except it this protectionist move impacts the world beyond their boarders so I have to actually care about this regressive policy pandering.

Dave
01-06-2017, 06:52 PM
Economic sanctions should be made against the USA for pulling out.

Does that include trips to Vegas?

Well maybe Nevada will disavow Trump's action, like California and New York are doing and move ahead with state initiatives to be more environmental. After all, Tesla had a big battery factory in Nevada. They are benefiting from green jobs.

Drumbones
01-06-2017, 06:56 PM
Does this mean that more tarsand oil will be accepted into the USA bolstering the economy of our region where we actually live and make our paychecks. I feel happy for the poorest states that mine coal and would have been devastated, maybe an agreement can be made where these areas would be top of the list for green jobs before they take their economy away. Maybe trump was thinking of that and these people. A new agreement with the promise of jobs to replace theirs plus more in these areas, and maybe Alberta's too.

I doubt that Trump thinks much about Alberta's welfare. His interests seem to be just the US and maybe after that places that have a Trump Hotel or golf course. No Trump Hotel in Alberta. I think we might be right after Albania in his mental filing system.

I wasn't implying that trump was thinking of Alberta I only meant that we are also perveyers of evil substances as well as Kentucky , Wyoming , Texas , Oklahoma, sask, and even California and Alaska so we're all in the same leaky boat in a sense when it comes to survival without selling carbon.

DanC
01-06-2017, 06:57 PM
The consequences to the World's climate is the effect.
None - nobody else aside from Canada and a handful of other countries are implementing it anyway, and even Canada's efforts were a fraction of what would be required to meet the target (a $200 carbon tax, not a $20 one). Even the truck load of regulations Obama bought in were doing squat. The world consumes more oil today than it ever has, and that consumption is increasing. Production has never been higher, and reserves are exceptional thanks to new technologies that open up every field ever drilled for a new round of extraction. Paris is a total failure, pretending it means something, and suggesting Trump withdrawing from Paris will have an impact (other than saving the US billions in wasted subsidies to other countries), is nonsense.
Yep, it's the way it is so we should do nothing about it. The world doesn't change policies of the past should not be updated. Status quo forever.
"Paris is a total failure" yet it's not even 18 months old...what you meant to say is Trump just did everything he could to bring to failure.
You arguments are just total garbage.

H.L.
01-06-2017, 07:15 PM
I Know, China's emissions are way to high, they should not be allowed to increase them. And to be logically consistent and not just deflecting selfish arse-holes I'm sure that you're fully behind cutting Canada's per capita emissions down to china's level immediately. It's only a 50% cut, we can do it!!!

Plus France dropped their carbon tax, why?

True but misleading. France - like all countries in the EU - already taxes fossil fuels much more heavily than Alberta does even with a carbon tax.

That's why gasoline prices in France are about double those in Alberta.

https://www.numbeo.com/gas-prices/country_result.jsp?country=France&displayCurrency=CAD
The UK has always had high fuel prices, i know, I lived there. The UK is unbelievable.

Dave
01-06-2017, 07:16 PM
Does this mean that more tarsand oil will be accepted into the USA bolstering the economy of our region where we actually live and make our paychecks. I feel happy for the poorest states that mine coal and would have been devastated, maybe an agreement can be made where these areas would be top of the list for green jobs before they take their economy away. Maybe trump was thinking of that and these people. A new agreement with the promise of jobs to replace theirs plus more in these areas, and maybe Alberta's too.

I doubt that Trump thinks much about Alberta's welfare. His interests seem to be just the US and maybe after that places that have a Trump Hotel or golf course. No Trump Hotel in Alberta. I think we might be right after Albania in his mental filing system.

I wasn't implying that trump was thinking of Alberta I only meant that we are also perveyers of evil substances as well as Kentucky , Wyoming , Texas , Oklahoma, sask, and even California and Alaska so we're all in the same leaky boat in a sense when it comes to survival without selling carbon.

Well its hard to understand exactly what is going through any US President's mind at the best of times. I find Trump doesn't try to make his thought process clear to people and I suspect it might be somewhat jumbled. From what he has said in the past, I think biggest concern here is coal miners. Some states with a lot of coal production are poor without a lot of other good job options and they have strongly supported Trump and the Republicans. Therefore, I think there is a combination of genuine concern and political calculation here by Trump.

Interestingly a number of big US oil companies have publicly said they wanted him to stick with the Paris agreement. I think there are some important differences between the oil and coal industries. First, coal is dirtier. Second, it is an older technology and is sort of on the way out anyways, coal fired power plants are being replaced by cheaper alternatives already. Third and somewhat related, the oil industry can adapt to more stringent environmental standards. I think at this point the people who lead the oil industry realize it would be better for their industry to change than fight.

MrOilers
01-06-2017, 07:25 PM
I Know, China's emissions are way to high, they should not be allowed to increase them.

China's emissions are higher than the USA and Europe COMBINED. And China doesn't need to do anything but receive billions of dollars for nothing.

This Paris climate agreement is a complete farce. If it was presented at face value without the word "Climate" in it's title, the left would not support it either.

MrOilers
01-06-2017, 07:28 PM
Well maybe Nevada will disavow Trump's action, like California and New York are doing and move ahead with state initiatives to be more environmental. After all, Tesla had a big battery factory in Nevada. They are benefiting from green jobs.

Ironically, I think that the USA pulling out of the Paris agreement will keep wealth, investment, and research into renewable energy in the USA, decreasing the USA's reliance on fossil fuels sooner.

kkozoriz
01-06-2017, 07:42 PM
I Know, China's emissions are way to high, they should not be allowed to increase them.

China's emissions are higher than the USA and Europe COMBINED. And China doesn't need to do anything but receive billions of dollars for nothing.

This Paris climate agreement is a complete farce. If it was presented at face value without the word "Climate" in it's title, the left would not support it either.


China has reduced it's carbon emissions in each of the past four years. Not reduced the rate. Reduced the emissions.

Also, Population of USA (321 million) + Europe (Not just EU -m 743 million) - total - 1.064 billion
Population of China - 1.371 billion

MrOilers
01-06-2017, 07:43 PM
Principles?
Principals won't pay for your food in retirement, but the money you made as opposed to lost, on your investments, will.

I think environmentalists, instead of shaming and trying to convince everyone to go along with sketchy plans made by untrustworthy politicians, they should instead set examples for all of us to follow.

They should all start their own zero-carbon emission businesses. Power your operations with windmills and solar panels, use geothermal heating, and drive electric delivery vehicles. You can also pay all your employees a minimum of $15 per hour to show how easy it is to give everyone a "living wage". Build competitive businesses this way and prove that it can be done!

MrOilers
01-06-2017, 07:44 PM
I Know, China's emissions are way to high, they should not be allowed to increase them.

China's emissions are higher than the USA and Europe COMBINED. And China doesn't need to do anything but receive billions of dollars for nothing.

This Paris climate agreement is a complete farce. If it was presented at face value without the word "Climate" in it's title, the left would not support it either.


China has reduced it's carbon emissions in each of the past four years. Not reduced the rate. Reduced the emissions.


I don't believe that.

I do believe that the USA and Europe have reduced theirs slightly, though.

KC
01-06-2017, 07:55 PM
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DBQu-Y-VoAAxZam.jpg


Well I don't need to see any further evidence than this to see that that these international non-committal "climate change" agreements are anything more than a mechanism for global wealth redistribution.

"Well I don't need to see any further evidence than this to see that that these international non-committal "climate change" agreements are anything more than a mechanism for global wealth redistribution. " Well, I think you forgot the quotation marks. This sounds like another Spicer'ism (Remember this one: "That was the largest audience to witness an inauguration, period." Sean Spicer [or is it Scene Splicer?]) :-)




The following chart presents the Dow Jones Industrial Average's daily percent change frequency distribution from 1896 to the present.


http://dogsofthedow.com/histogram-m.gif


Point of Interest - Most striking is that this chart approaches a normal distribution (Bell Curve) thereby suggesting that the daily changes in the Dow are random. The Dow Weekly Percent Change Histogram has similar characteristics. For those of you that actually remember that statistics course we have a few numbers. The mean (average daily gain) is .026% demonstrating the upward bias of the Dow. The standard deviation is 1.07% and translated to English this means that 68% of the time the Dow has a daily change between ±1.1%; 95% of the time the Dow has a daily change between ±2.1%; and 99% of the time the Dow has a daily change between ±3.2%. So if you see that the Dow has dropped well over 2% you shouldn't be to surprised as as it would be expected that the Dow fluctuate more than ±2.1% five percent of the time which equals one trading day out of the month. All this hopefully provides you with a little perspective as to the Dow's daily fluctuations."


http://dogsofthedow.com/histogram-m.htm




Bolding was mine

champking
01-06-2017, 07:56 PM
More reason to pull investment out of Alberta oilsands and buy American . ' social license ' lmao. More like scam artists

KC
01-06-2017, 08:01 PM
Principles?
Principals won't pay for your food in retirement, but the money you made as opposed to lost, on your investments, will.

I think environmentalists, instead of shaming and trying to convince everyone to go along with sketchy plans made by untrustworthy politicians, they should instead set examples for all of us to follow.

They should all start their own zero-carbon emission businesses. Power your operations with windmills and solar panels, use geothermal heating, and drive electric delivery vehicles. You can also pay all your employees a minimum of $15 per hour to show how easy it is to give everyone a "living wage". Build competitive businesses this way and prove that it can be done!

I bet many have. Hence today's super cheap solar panels, etc.

H.L.
01-06-2017, 08:04 PM
I Know, China's emissions are way to high, they should not be allowed to increase them.

China's emissions are higher than the USA and Europe COMBINED. And China doesn't need to do anything but receive billions of dollars for nothing.

This Paris climate agreement is a complete farce. If it was presented at face value without the word "Climate" in it's title, the left would not support it either.


China has reduced it's carbon emissions in each of the past four years. Not reduced the rate. Reduced the emissions.

Also, Population of USA (321 million) + Europe (Not just EU -m 743 million) - total - 1.064 billion
Population of China - 1.371 billion

Is that why they all walk around wearing masks?

H.L.
01-06-2017, 08:08 PM
I Know, China's emissions are way to high, they should not be allowed to increase them. And to be logically consistent and not just deflecting selfish arse-holes I'm sure that you're fully behind cutting Canada's per capita emissions down to china's level immediately. It's only a 50% cut, we can do it!!!

Plus France dropped their carbon tax, why?

True but misleading. France - like all countries in the EU - already taxes fossil fuels much more heavily than Alberta does even with a carbon tax.

That's why gasoline prices in France are about double those in Alberta.

https://www.numbeo.com/gas-prices/country_result.jsp?country=France&displayCurrency=CAD

Btw, the reason their fuel is so very high, is they need the money to pay for their social programs. Bus drivers ( over 15 years ago) were retiring at a very young age, with a full pension.

H.L.
01-06-2017, 08:18 PM
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DBQu-Y-VoAAxZam.jpg

Whoa! that's telling the globalists something!!!:eek:

Dave
01-06-2017, 08:29 PM
More reason to pull investment out of Alberta oilsands and buy American . ' social license ' lmao. More like scam artists

I think it was a case of buy high and sell low for a number of international oil companies. They came in when oil prices were high and sold after they dropped.

If oil prices continue to increase, the Alberta companies that have bought up things from them have will have made a great investment. I think it will also ultimately be better for Alberta that the oil sands be developed by Alberta based companies rather than companies that have their head offices in Houston or London, so I don't see this as a bad thing.

All the problems with pipelines may ultimately lead to more refining being done in Alberta too, rather than Louisiana or China so that may be good for jobs here too. Apparently the Green Leader in BC is friends with the guy who wants to build a refinery in Prince Rupert if you can believe it. The world is such a complicated place.

Dave
01-06-2017, 08:38 PM
I Know, China's emissions are way to high, they should not be allowed to increase them. And to be logically consistent and not just deflecting selfish arse-holes I'm sure that you're fully behind cutting Canada's per capita emissions down to china's level immediately. It's only a 50% cut, we can do it!!!

Plus France dropped their carbon tax, why?

True but misleading. France - like all countries in the EU - already taxes fossil fuels much more heavily than Alberta does even with a carbon tax.

That's why gasoline prices in France are about double those in Alberta.

https://www.numbeo.com/gas-prices/country_result.jsp?country=France&displayCurrency=CAD

Btw, the reason their fuel is so very high, is they need the money to pay for their social programs. Bus drivers ( over 15 years ago) were retiring at a very young age, with a full pension.

Perhaps this helps us keep things in perspective here. For all the complaining about the carbon tax, our gas prices here are still fairly good compared to most of Canada and Europe too.

Europe doesn't have a lot of its own oil, so I think they want to constrain consumption partly out of concerns around security of supply.

champking
01-06-2017, 08:46 PM
More reason to pull investment out of Alberta oilsands and buy American . ' social license ' lmao. More like scam artists

I think it was a case of buy high and sell low for a number of international oil companies. They came in when oil prices were high and sold after they dropped.

If oil prices continue to increase, the Alberta companies that have bought up things from them have will have made a great investment. I think it will also ultimately be better for Alberta that the oil sands be developed by Alberta based companies rather than companies that have their head offices in Houston or London, so I don't see this as a bad thing.

All the problems with pipelines may ultimately lead to more refining being done in Alberta too, rather than Louisiana or China so that may be good for jobs here too. Apparently the Green Leader in BC is friends with the guy who wants to build a refinery in Prince Rupert if you can believe it. The world is such a complicated place.
Who knows for sure but it was sure a sad day to see Shell go. They were best of the best when it comes to treating it's workers good, it's culture of safety...they really made a guy feel bigger than just a number.

I know a lot of guys after 25 years in the industry , don't want to go back. We rather a steady paycheck , even at less pay.

If they thought it was hard to find skilled labor before , many of us have moved on ...we despise the industry we worked for.

Them lobbying a carbon tax was last straw. Personally I rather take my money and invest in Trump.

MrOilers
01-06-2017, 08:47 PM
Europe doesn't have a lot of its own oil, so I think they want to constrain consumption partly out of concerns around security of supply.

Not just security of supply, but security, period. Part of the reason for the wars in Syria - and the refugee crisis - are battles over the real estate needed to build pipelines across Syria to supply oil to Europe. Saudi Arabia (US ally) and Iran (Russian ally) each want to build their own pipeline there, but would rather fund armies to duke it out there instead of compete in the marketplace.

KC
01-06-2017, 08:52 PM
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DBQu-Y-VoAAxZam.jpg

Whoa! that's telling the globalists something!!!:eek:

You mean the lack of movement?

See post #57

champking
01-06-2017, 09:16 PM
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DBQu-Y-VoAAxZam.jpg

Whoa! that's telling the globalists something!!!:eek: .
You mean the lack of movement?

See post #57
Much of the rhetoric has calm since oil prices collapse but, when everyone thought oil was going $200 we had nothing good to say about our friends to the south, everyone complain they were ripping us off. Albertan's are extremely arrogant but this is what it's about. Selling our friends out in the south to get in bed with the communists. Harper set precedence selling Nexen...we see it with our housing. It's going be the largest land confiscation and all to the communists. I saved all the old articles, what was said and pen Trump. I thinking we making a huge mistake and will do everything in my power to stop it....we're sellouts . Back stabbing sellouts .

KC
01-06-2017, 09:26 PM
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DBQu-Y-VoAAxZam.jpg

Whoa! that's telling the globalists something!!!:eek: .
You mean the lack of movement?

See post #57
Much of the rhetoric has calm since oil prices collapse but, when everyone thought oil was going $200 we had nothing good to say about our friends to the south, everyone complain they were ripping us off. Albertan's are extremely arrogant but this is what it's about. Selling our friends out in the south to get in bed with the communists. Harper set precedence selling Nexen...we see it with our housing. It's going be the largest land confiscation and all to the communists. I saved all the old articles, what was said and pen Trump. I thinking we making a huge mistake and will do everything in my power to stop it....we're sellouts . Back stabbing sellouts .

Provide some quotes and references please.

KC
01-06-2017, 09:28 PM
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DBQu-Y-VoAAxZam.jpg

Whoa! that's telling the globalists something!!!:eek:

You mean the lack of movement?

See post #57

Canada sure jumped on the news.

Per google:
"S&P/TSX Composite Index
OSPTX (INDEXTSI)
15,469.91Price increase120.00 (0.78%)
Jun 1, 4:20 PM EDT - Disclaimer..."

Check Bloomberg and many global markets were up. Gee how could that be?

H.L.
01-06-2017, 10:07 PM
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DBQu-Y-VoAAxZam.jpg

Whoa! that's telling the globalists something!!!:eek:

You mean the lack of movement?

See post #57

No, I won't see post #57! Why? Because I made a remark on the Dow.lol

Spudly
01-06-2017, 10:11 PM
CALLING EARTH A “LOSER,” TRUMP VOWS TO MAKE BETTER DEAL WITH NEW PLANET (http://www.newyorker.com/humor/borowitz-report/calling-earth-a-loser-trump-vows-to-make-better-deal-with-new-planet)

KC
01-06-2017, 10:15 PM
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DBQu-Y-VoAAxZam.jpg

Whoa! that's telling the globalists something!!!:eek:

You mean the lack of movement?

See post #57

No, I won't see post #57! Why? Because I made a remark on the Dow.lol
No, I was just telling you something. lol

KC
01-06-2017, 10:18 PM
So why would Trump want to renegotiate a deal to prevent global warming- when he believes global warming is a farce. Sounds very irrational or disingenuous to me.

H.L.
01-06-2017, 10:36 PM
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DBQu-Y-VoAAxZam.jpg

Whoa! that's telling the globalists something!!!:eek:

You mean the lack of movement?

See post #57

No, I won't see post #57! Why? Because I made a remark on the Dow.lol
No, I was just telling you something. lol


Oh, sorry KC

H.L.
01-06-2017, 10:39 PM
So why would Trump want to renegotiate a deal to prevent global warming- when he believes global warming is a farce. Sounds very irrational or disingenuous to me.

I guess one that doesn't see the US give billions away with no accountability. How many times have we given money away, and it never reaches the right people. Is that so wrong?

Edmonton PRT
02-06-2017, 05:33 AM
You missed KC's point completely.

moahunter
02-06-2017, 06:18 AM
The consequences to the World's climate is the effect.
None - nobody else aside from Canada and a handful of other countries are implementing it anyway, .

Just where do you get your information?

There are only three countries that did not sign the Accord. Syria, Nicaragua and Trumpland.
Doh - read the word "implementing". It is easy to sign onto something, talk the green talk (while you fly around the world in jet fuel burning planes with huge entourages to visit places like Paris to sip Chardonnay with the elites), and actually implementing it. Most of the world is doing exactly what the Liberals did with Kyoto - signed on, and nothing. Even France, you know, the place where Paris is, decided not to go on with a carbon tax. The trade unions there will never allow regulations that destroy their well paid jobs. And, even if you go with a carbon tax, it isn't reducing our emissions one iota, other than to the extent it's sending business investment and jobs to other countries where they will emit just as much plant food if not more.

moahunter
02-06-2017, 06:37 AM
The consequences to the World's climate is the effect.
None - nobody else aside from Canada and a handful of other countries are implementing it anyway, and even Canada's efforts were a fraction of what would be required to meet the target (a $200 carbon tax, not a $20 one). Even the truck load of regulations Obama bought in were doing squat. The world consumes more oil today than it ever has, and that consumption is increasing. Production has never been higher, and reserves are exceptional thanks to new technologies that open up every field ever drilled for a new round of extraction. Paris is a total failure, pretending it means something, and suggesting Trump withdrawing from Paris will have an impact (other than saving the US billions in wasted subsidies to other countries), is nonsense.
Yep, it's the way it is so we should do nothing about it. The world doesn't change policies of the past should not be updated. Status quo forever.
"Paris is a total failure" yet it's not even 18 months old...what you meant to say is Trump just did everything he could to bring to failure.
You arguments are just total garbage.
Well you carry on naively believing like a good little Boy Scout DanC, that counties that signed on to Paris are implementing it - other than a few token green projects to make money for consultant friends, most politicians in most countries are doing squat - if they actually do something to make a difference, they are getting voted out, because regular people care more about their jobs and income than they do about reducing their personal consumption. Global emissions will reduce one day, once the rest of the world has caught up to our lifestyles (which they have a right to), and the technology is economic to compete with fossil fuels. We will see at the next Alberta election who's views proved to be garbage, and who's proved to be in tune with Albertans.

KC
02-06-2017, 06:41 AM
The consequences to the World's climate is the effect.
None - nobody else aside from Canada and a handful of other countries are implementing it anyway, .

Just where do you get your information?

There are only three countries that did not sign the Accord. Syria, Nicaragua and Trumpland.
Doh - read the word "implementing". It is easy to sign onto something, talk the green talk (while you fly around the world in jet fuel burning planes with huge entourages to visit places like Paris to sip Chardonnay with the elites), and actually implementing it. Most of the world is doing exactly what the Liberals did with Kyoto - signed on, and nothing. Even France, you know, the place where Paris is, decided not to go on with a carbon tax. The trade unions there will never allow regulations that destroy their well paid jobs. And, even if you go with a carbon tax, it isn't reducing our emissions one iota, other than to the extent it's sending business investment and jobs to other countries where they will emit just as much plant food if not more.

Sign and sit is the historical pattern so pulling out may make no difference other than being honest about it. Nonetheless, if that's the case, then it makes absolutely no sense to talk about renegotiating and getting back into the deal. Totally bone-headed suggestion if (right or wrong) the US now exits because it believes global warming isn't real...

moahunter
02-06-2017, 07:02 AM
^the renegotiation talk is just to appease soft republicians. Trump has massive support from his base for this, including the blue collar democratic industrial heartland in the US he won the election with - it's symbolic (as the Paris accord was), but it's a powerful symbol that the liberal elites and their hypocritical jetsettng luxury yacht living ways dont hold power in the US anymore. Here is a picture of the guy who signed onto Paris for the US, along with his family, showing how much he really cared about implementing it:

http://politicmag.net/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/Barack-Obama-snaps-photo-of-Michelle-Obama-on-yacht-Picture.jpg

Americans can choose Presidents who tell them to reduce their consumption while they personally increase theirs, or they can choose a President who lets regular people, many of them working class and struggling in difficult economies, consume as much as they can to improve their lifestyles, just like he does. We have the same choice in Canada, aka the jet and the helicopter to the Aga Khans island, and the huge entourages to international conferences to win a security council seat, while being preached to about carbon taxes. I know which I prefer, but then, unlike many on here, I'm a realist who doesn't get my inspiration and my science knowledge from the sound bites of phony's.

Edmonton PRT
02-06-2017, 08:01 AM
We are all hypocrites. You drive a gas guzzling car don't you? You waste water, use plastics and eat fruit shipped from halfway around the world, correct?

You make a good point but your Hero, his entourage and security detail flies each weekend to his luxury resort on Air Force One and leaves a carbon footprint the size of a small country.

At least the former President paid taxes and encouraged nations to reduce emissions and set up regulations and policies in America to clean up the environment. His actions were positive and set America on a path to reduced dependency on foreign resources and CO2 reduction.

Trump denies that climate change is real and works in the opposite direction. Your Hero is a fraud and you drink his purple toxic Koolaid. Trump want's to go back to the 1950's and 60's where industry could do what they wanted without environmental regulations.


https://pbs.twimg.com/media/C4HzPIkWMAAuayd.jpg


https://www.carbontax.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/Trump-Air-meme-w-polluted-NYC-_-2-June-2016.png


http://www.pophistorydig.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/1969-oil-spill-LAT-300-sepia.jpg

noodle
02-06-2017, 08:10 AM
^^ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tu_quoque


Tu quoque (/tjuːˈkwoʊkwiː/; Latin for, "you also") or the appeal to hypocrisy is an informal logical fallacy that intends to discredit the validity of the opponent's logical argument by asserting the opponent's failure to act consistently in accordance with its conclusion(s).
Tu quoque "argument" follows the pattern:


Person A makes claim X.
Person B asserts that A's actions or past claims are inconsistent with the truth of claim X.
Therefore X is false.


An example would be:

Peter: "Based on the arguments I have presented, it is evident that it is morally wrong to use animals for food or clothing."
Bill: "But you are wearing a leather jacket and you have a roast beef sandwich in your hand! How can you say that using animals for food and clothing is wrong?"

It is a fallacy because the moral character or past actions of the opponent are generally irrelevant to the logic of the argument. It is often used as a red herring tactic and is a special case of the ad hominem fallacy, which is a category of fallacies in which a claim or argument is rejected on the basis of facts about the person presenting or supporting the claim or argument.

Top_Dawg
02-06-2017, 08:24 AM
I think environmentalists, instead of shaming and trying to convince everyone to go along with sketchy plans made by untrustworthy politicians, they should instead set examples for all of us to follow.

They should all start their own zero-carbon emission businesses. Power your operations with windmills and solar panels, use geothermal heating, and drive electric delivery vehicles. You can also pay all your employees a minimum of $15 per hour to show how easy it is to give everyone a "living wage". Build competitive businesses this way and prove that it can be done!


:smt042

Good one Mr. Oil.

Top_Dawg is always amused with these so called progressives and their sanctimonious drivel about what everybody else should be doing.

Edmonton PRT
02-06-2017, 08:42 AM
President Trump mentions Youngstown in U.S. withdrawal from climate pact - See more at: http://www.vindy.com/news/2017/jun/01/president-trump-mentions-youngstown-us-withdrawal-/#sthash.28F362J1.dpuf


When asked to respond, Mayor John A. McNally, a Democrat, said: “His decision to withdraw just put the U.S. with Syria and Nicaragua in opposing the deal – and Nicaragua thinks the agreement is not tough enough. Nothing about the U.S. withdrawal would seem to indicate any form of job creation for the city of Youngstown. The Trump administration has never discussed how the withdrawal would better the lives of Youngstown residents. So while it’s nice to hear our city’s name, there is no substance to the thought of putting us with other cities before Paris.” -

U.S. Rep. Tim Ryan of Howland, D-13th, tweeted: “Pulling out of this deal doesn’t help Youngstown. It destroys American leadership, wipes out clean-energy jobs, and hurts our environment.” -
See more at: http://www.vindy.com/news/2017/jun/01/president-trump-mentions-youngstown-us-withdrawal-/#sthash.u0QjMB2g.dpuf

Additionally, the Mayor of Youngstown Ohio stated that although they just received $200,000 from the EPA for environmental cleanup and appreciates the POTUS mentioning his city, he supports the Paris Accord and a cleaner environment that means more jobs for his constituents. He stated that the biggest loss was the steel industry in 1977 when 25,000 jobs were lost and does not see any real hope in the few coal jobs for the region and highly doubts that the steel industry will ever come back to Ohio despite what the President thinks. He reminds the President that back in the 1970's, the air was so bad from the coal and steel industry in Pittsburgh and Youngstown that they had to keep the street lights on 24 hours a day.

His city is committed to a cleaner environment and revitalizing his city that has seen a resurgence of growth, not seen in nearly 50 years because the city is a cleaner and healthier place to live and do business.

noodle
02-06-2017, 08:48 AM
He also mentioned Pittsburgh, who also supports Paris & voted 80% for Clinton. (You'd think he'd know this since he was handing out election results maps like Happy Meal toys up until a month ago!)

MrOilers
02-06-2017, 08:51 AM
I am trying to be open-mided about the premise of this Paris agreement, but not one person anywhere has been able to explain how taking money from countries that have environmental regulations and giving it all to countries without any regulations (including China) is supposed to make the world less polluted?

This agreement was negotiated and signed by politicians who are working in the interest of international relations and economics of their own countries. With the Trillions of dollars possibly changing hands , I am skeptical that ANYONE would be doing this deal out of altruism.

noodle
02-06-2017, 08:59 AM
I am trying to be open-mided about the premise of this Paris agreement, but not one person anywhere has been able to explain how taking money from countries that have environmental regulations and giving it all to countries without any regulations (including China) is supposed to make the world less polluted?

Given the narrow scope & singular tone of the media outlets you're receptive to listening to (without crying "fake news! fake news!"), I'm not surprised you've not been able to find anyone actually speaking to what the Paris Agreement entails.

Maybe turn off Fox News & read the agreement for yourself?

http://unfccc.int/paris_agreement/items/9485.php

Edmonton PRT
02-06-2017, 09:00 AM
Fantasy:
Trump thinks that you can slap a coat of paint on it and all the jobs will come back to Ohio.

Reality:
https://c1.staticflickr.com/2/1007/881937751_53110f1554_z.jpg



Can President Trump rescue the Rust Belt?
http://theweek.com/articles/686314/president-trump-rescue-rust-belt


"A steel mill like we have here, 20 years ago, it would have to be run by 5,000 or 6,000 people," says Ohio State Sen. Sean O'Brien. "Now it's 800 people, because of automation." As technology becomes ever more sophisticated, job losses will grow, not diminish. A 2013 study projected that as many as 47 percent of U.S. jobs could be lost to automation and robots over the next two decades.

East McCauley
02-06-2017, 09:14 AM
^^^^^Illogical they may be, but appeals to hypocrisy can be extremely effective and that's why they're made. The average person may not know much about the soundness of the arguments for the Paris climate agreement. But it's pretty easy to spot a hypocrite when the former President who signed the agreement is seen living a jet setting lifestyle on luxury yachts while you're shoveling snow off your sidewalks in the American Midwest.

It's pretty much a given that the less you fail to live up to the ideals you espouse, the more damaging they will be to your public reputation. A bible thumping politician or evangelist who talks endlessly about the sanctity of marriage while carrying on an affair with an aide will be judged much more harshly in the court of public opinion than a liberal politician who makes no similar claims.

Highlander II
02-06-2017, 09:28 AM
I am trying to be open-mided about the premise of this Paris agreement, but not one person anywhere has been able to explain how taking money from countries that have environmental regulations and giving it all to countries without any regulations (including China) is supposed to make the world less polluted?

This agreement was negotiated and signed by politicians who are working in the interest of international relations and economics of their own countries. With the Trillions of dollars possibly changing hands , I am skeptical that ANYONE would be doing this deal out of altruism.

The money changing hands is voluntary contributions, with the goal of $100B per year in a fund for climate mitigation in poor countries. It's a lot of money, but it's not all on the west - middle income countries have made contributions - and even if it were all coming from the top tier wealthy nations (~1Billion people in Canada/US, Western Europe, Japan, Australia, S Korea and a few others) it would amount to about $3B per year for Canada.

That money would be to allow the poorest countries to do mitigation work to deal with the negative effects of a problem that was they didn't cause. Essentially we would be paying to deal with a problem that we caused - building sea walls in Bangladesh to deal with dea level rise, solar power plants and desalination plants in places where lower rainfall and more frequent drought make them necessary, water treatment where storm flooding makes drinking water worse, that kind of thing.


It's not wealth transfer any more than it's wealth transfer when the person at fault or their insurance pays the victim's medical bills after a traffic crash.

Highlander II
02-06-2017, 09:30 AM
^^^^^Illogical they may be, but appeals to hypocrisy can be extremely effective and that's why they're made. The average person may not know much about the soundness of the arguments for the Paris climate agreement. But it's pretty easy to spot a hypocrite when the former President who signed the agreement is seen living a jet setting lifestyle on luxury yachts while you're shoveling snow off your sidewalks in the American Midwest.

*snip*
.

Now if only the real environmentalists had promoted carbon taxes as a way to screw over Al Gore for his excessive use......

MrOilers
02-06-2017, 09:31 AM
Regular people see people like Al Gore and Obama (and current politicians) leave their gigantic homes (that have no solar panels or windmills), take a car to the airport, jump onto their private plane, then take a limo to their mega yacht so they can host a dinner party with other celebrity environmental activists. Then later we hear them shame us for ruining the environment and telling us we need to pay higher taxes for living our "unsustainable" lifestyles, threaten to take away our sources of income (energy jobs), and then put our nation deeper into debt so they can give free money to polluting countries like China in international agreements like this.

I applaud President Trump for finally having the guts to tell all those champagne socialist hypocrites where to stick it.

Medwards
02-06-2017, 09:39 AM
MrOilers hates planet earth.

noodle
02-06-2017, 09:40 AM
And logic. And scientific consensus. And fact-based reporting.

Highlander II
02-06-2017, 09:47 AM
Regular people see people like Al Gore and Obama (and current politicians) leave their gigantic homes (that have no solar panels or windmills), take a car to the airport, jump onto their private plane, then take a limo to their mega yacht so they can host a dinner party with other celebrity environmental activists. Then later we hear them shame us for ruining the environment and telling us we need to pay higher taxes for living our "unsustainable" lifestyles, threaten to take away our sources of income (energy jobs), and then put our nation deeper into debt so they can give free money to polluting countries like China in international agreements like this.

I applaud President Trump for finally having the guts to tell all those champagne socialist hypocrites where to stick it.

Then you should be railing against the inequality of the system, pushing for Nordic-style social democracy. Because guess who will feel the effects of climate change? That's right, first the poor especially in poor and arid nations, then the working and lower middle classes who can't afford a yacht. Then, if we do hit worst case scenario we get mass migrations from places rendered uninhabitable, massive social upheaval.

Hey, maybe we'll even get a violent revolution of some sort! That'll show the elites!!

H.L.
02-06-2017, 09:49 AM
Regular people see people like Al Gore and Obama (and current politicians) leave their gigantic homes (that have no solar panels or windmills), take a car to the airport, jump onto their private plane, then take a limo to their mega yacht so they can host a dinner party with other celebrity environmental activists. Then later we hear them shame us for ruining the environment and telling us we need to pay higher taxes for living our "unsustainable" lifestyles, threaten to take away our sources of income (energy jobs), and then put our nation deeper into debt so they can give free money to polluting countries like China in international agreements like this.

I applaud President Trump for finally having the guts to tell all those champagne socialist hypocrites where to stick it.


I don't know why anyone is surprised either, he said during his campaign, this was what he was going to do. The other countries can carry on, but China and India aren't kicking any money in, so there's that

Medwards
02-06-2017, 09:55 AM
there's more to life than money. That seems to be all trump supporters care about though.

Highlander II
02-06-2017, 09:55 AM
Why the hell should India put money in? Their emissions are 1.9t. per capita, ours are 15.5t per capita, 8 times as much. They are also much poorer - and they have their own very poor areas that will likely be hit hard by climate change - their own places to do mitigation and their own work to get their population out of extreme poverty without increasing emissions.

moahunter
02-06-2017, 09:58 AM
Why the hell should India put money in? Their emissions are 1.9t. per capita, ours are 15.5t per capita, 8 times as much. They are also much poorer - and they have their own very poor areas that will likely be hit hard by climate change - their own places to do mitigation and their own work to get their population out of extreme poverty without increasing emissions.
I thought you cared about reducing greenhouse gas emissions. If that's the goal - reducing the emissions of the biggest emitters is what matters - not the "per capita" emissions. Oh - hold on, seems not the goal, its a poverty re-distribution fund, which makes Obama feel better with his enlightened family and friends sipping lattes on the yacht.

MrOilers
02-06-2017, 10:00 AM
Oh I see - rich countries pay, and poor countries receive.


Margaret Thatcher, back in 2002, called it for what it is:


"The doomsters’ favorite subject today is climate change. This has a number of attractions for them. First, the science is extremely obscure so they cannot easily be proved wrong. Second, we all have ideas about the weather: traditionally, the English on first acquaintance talk of little else.

Third, since clearly no plan to alter climate could be considered on anything but a global scale, it provides a marvelous excuse for worldwide, supra-national socialism. "


(Margaret Thatcher, by the way, was an environmentalist. She held a science degree and was the world leader who spearheaded the global ban on ozone-layer-depleting CFCs)

Edmonton PRT
02-06-2017, 10:12 AM
Yeah, pull up a 15 year old quote. ZERO science and research on climate has happened since then. :rolleyes:

Desperate to find some sources to back up your bias, are we?

Highlander II
02-06-2017, 10:14 AM
Why the hell should India put money in? Their emissions are 1.9t. per capita, ours are 15.5t per capita, 8 times as much. They are also much poorer - and they have their own very poor areas that will likely be hit hard by climate change - their own places to do mitigation and their own work to get their population out of extreme poverty without increasing emissions.
I thought you cared about reducing greenhouse gas emissions. If that's the goal - reducing the emissions of the biggest emitters is what matters - not the "per capita" emissions. Oh - hold on, seems not the goal, its a poverty re-distribution fund, which makes Obama feel better with his enlightened family and friends sipping lattes on the yacht.

Yes, and the biggest emitters are not people in poor nations, it's people in rich nations. that there's just a few of us in Canada means nothing.

If there's a grouping that matters it's "Rich people" - and on a global scale that means us.

noodle
02-06-2017, 10:16 AM
Vice President Mike Pence has called the issue of climate change "a paramount issue for the left" as he sought to defend Donald Trump's decision to withdraw the US from the Paris Agreement (http://www.independent.co.uk/topic/paris-agreement) on climate change (http://www.independent.co.uk/topic/climate-change).

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/mike-pence-climate-change-us-vice-president-paris-agreement-issue-left-for-some-reason-donald-trump-a7769081.html

So everyone (except Syria) is now "the left" to Pence. Mind you, he's a crazy religious nutter who believes that destroying the planet is something to strive for, as it'll herald the return of his beloved zombie carpenter demi-god with the circular family tree, whose bronze age book of fairy tales he's based his entire life on.

Highlander II
02-06-2017, 10:19 AM
Yeah, pull up a 15 year old quote. ZERO science and research on climate has happened since then. :rolleyes:

Desperate to find some sources to back up your bias, are we?

That Thatcher quote is revealing - it's not about climate change or Kyoto targets or anything concrete like that. It's an ideological assumption that anything global is about wealth distribution and socialism.

Yes, international problems require international solutions. That's obvious.

What's completely idiotic is condemning proposed solutions on the basis that they are international.

moahunter
02-06-2017, 10:20 AM
^^everyone except Canada, and a handful of countries, is ignoring the Paris agreement, or honestly withdrawing from it (US). Even Canada isn't implementing it (to do so, would be political suicide for Trudeau, given how ridiculously high the carbon tax would have to go to reach our targets).

noodle
02-06-2017, 10:22 AM
That Thatcher quote is revealing - it's not about climate change or Kyoto targets or anything concrete like that. It's an ideological assumption that anything global is about wealth distribution and socialism.

Yes, international problems require international solutions. That's obvious.

What's completely idiotic is condemning proposed solutions on the basis that they are international.

"I hardly see why I should have to give up some of my abundant wealth to aid those at whose expense I acquired it..."

Edmonton PRT
02-06-2017, 10:25 AM
Why the hell should India put money in? Their emissions are 1.9t. per capita, ours are 15.5t per capita, 8 times as much. They are also much poorer - and they have their own very poor areas that will likely be hit hard by climate change - their own places to do mitigation and their own work to get their population out of extreme poverty without increasing emissions.

And the richer industrialized countries have been polluting at a greater rates for over 100 years. The bulk of the World's pollution are now the ones with the most responsibility to clean up what they started.



https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/originals/8f/8f/9d/8f8f9d77b5825cf02e8bee71deab62ef.jpg

http://wikiphilia.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/The-Great-Stink.jpg


We also have exported our manufacturing and the pollution associated with industrialization to the third world. Every time we buy electronics or dispose of them, the waste ends up in third world countries.
http://grupoorion.unex.es:8001/rid=1K42WXBWZ-1JMVGY2-2N48/Metales.jpg


moahunter, do you really believe that you have no responsibility to pay a portion of the costs to help clean up the problem that you contributed to?


Your answer will be interesting.

Highlander II
02-06-2017, 10:27 AM
Vice President Mike Pence has called the issue of climate change "a paramount issue for the left" as he sought to defend Donald Trump's decision to withdraw the US from the Paris Agreement (http://www.independent.co.uk/topic/paris-agreement) on climate change (http://www.independent.co.uk/topic/climate-change).

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/mike-pence-climate-change-us-vice-president-paris-agreement-issue-left-for-some-reason-donald-trump-a7769081.html

So everyone (except Syria) is now "the left" to Pence. Mind you, he's a crazy religious nutter who believes that destroying the planet is something to strive for, as it'll herald the return of his beloved zombie carpenter demi-god with the circular family tree, whose bronze age book of fairy tales he's based his entire life on.

I am a Christian, and this idea that we should screw things up to hasten the end is pretty much the antithesis of Christian worldview and ethics. Environmental stewardship, care and advocacy for the poor and disadvantaged, and self-sacrifice for others are all Christian values.

H.L.
02-06-2017, 10:29 AM
Why the hell should India put money in? Their emissions are 1.9t. per capita, ours are 15.5t per capita, 8 times as much. They are also much poorer - and they have their own very poor areas that will likely be hit hard by climate change - their own places to do mitigation and their own work to get their population out of extreme poverty without increasing emissions.
I thought you cared about reducing greenhouse gas emissions. If that's the goal - reducing the emissions of the biggest emitters is what matters - not the "per capita" emissions. Oh - hold on, seems not the goal, its a poverty re-distribution fund, which makes Obama feel better with his enlightened family and friends sipping lattes on the yacht.


I love types like Obama, they want to say all the right things, but they won't put their own lifestyle in jeopardy. Boats, planes etc.their carbon footprint is huge! Like that huge fake guy, Al Gore and his lefty lemmings. They must know many of us think they are hypocrites.!

Edmonton PRT
02-06-2017, 10:30 AM
^^everyone except Canada, and a handful of countries, is ignoring the Paris agreement, or honestly withdrawing from it (US). Even Canada isn't implementing it (to do so, would be political suicide for Trudeau, given how ridiculously high the carbon tax would have to go to reach our targets).

That's because we have people like you that rail against the Government or anyone trying to take responsibility for their actions that created the problem in the first place. Did your mother not teach you that "if you make a mess, you are responsible to clean it up."

Do you believe that it is someone else's problem and you can keep on making messes and have someone else clean up after you at their cost?

noodle
02-06-2017, 10:45 AM
Do you believe that it is someone else's problem and you can keep on making messes and have someone else clean up after you at their cost?

Rhetorical question. He's a prophet from the Church of Ralph Klein, Patron Saint of Kicking the Can Down The Road.

East McCauley
02-06-2017, 11:04 AM
^^everyone except Canada, and a handful of countries, is ignoring the Paris agreement, or honestly withdrawing from it (US).

Not true. For instance, the European Union met its target of an 8% GHG emissions reduction under the previous Kyoto Protocol, and has adopted a more ambitious target for further reductions under the Paris Climate Agreement than either Canada or the US.

https://ec.europa.eu/clima/policies/strategies/progress/kyoto_1_en

moahunter
02-06-2017, 11:10 AM
^That's Kyoto. And, its a lot easier when you don't produce oil / gas, you import it from Russia, Norway, Africa, or the Middle East, who take the emissions burden.

noodle
02-06-2017, 11:16 AM
It's like you don't even know the relationship between Kyoto & Paris. Kyoto is up to 2020. Paris is after 2020. Same path, same destination.


Within the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, legal instruments may be adopted to reach the goals of the convention. For the period from 2008 to 2012, greenhouse gas reduction measures were agreed in the Kyoto Protocol in 1997. The scope of the protocol was extended until 2020 with the Doha Amendment to that protocol in 2012.
During the 2011 United Nations Climate Change Conference, the Durban Platform (and the Ad Hoc Working Group on the Durban Platform for Enhanced Action) was established with the aim to negotiate a legal instrument governing climate change mitigation measures from 2020. The resulting agreement was to be adopted in 2015.


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

Continuing the right's fine tradition of objecting to things on principle, while having incomplete understanding & fundamentally terrible principles in the first place.

Hilman
02-06-2017, 11:16 AM
Why the hell should India put money in? Their emissions are 1.9t. per capita, ours are 15.5t per capita, 8 times as much. They are also much poorer - and they have their own very poor areas that will likely be hit hard by climate change - their own places to do mitigation and their own work to get their population out of extreme poverty without increasing emissions.
I thought you cared about reducing greenhouse gas emissions. If that's the goal - reducing the emissions of the biggest emitters is what matters - not the "per capita" emissions. Oh - hold on, seems not the goal, its a poverty re-distribution fund, which makes Obama feel better with his enlightened family and friends sipping lattes on the yacht.


I love types like Obama, they want to say all the right things, but they won't put their own lifestyle in jeopardy. Boats, planes etc.their carbon footprint is huge! Like that huge fake guy, Al Gore and his lefty lemmings. They must know many of us think they are hypocrites.!

Coincidentally, Obama just bought a house in DC with 8 bedrooms and 9.5 bathrooms for over $8 million.

noodle
02-06-2017, 11:18 AM
Irrelevantly, Obama just bought a house in DC with 8 bedrooms and 9.5 bathrooms for over $8 million.

FTFY.

Highlander II
02-06-2017, 11:19 AM
^^^^How is it easier, Moa? We're not talking about having lower per capita levels than we do, where domestic vs. foreign energy sources might have an effect.

We're talking about a reduction for what they emitted in 1990 - they're burning the same foreign oil as in 1990, just less of it.

moahunter
02-06-2017, 11:24 AM
^^^^How is it easier, Moa? We're not talking about having lower per capita levels than we do, where domestic vs. foreign energy sources might have an effect.

If you import most of your oil and gas, you have a service economy rather than a manufacturing or resources economy, of course its easier. One of the easiest ways to meet an emissions target, is to close a manufacturing plant and build it in another country, then import the products from there. Does nothing for global emissions, but you meet your target, Audi puts a plant in Mexico instead of another one in Germany, great. Global consumption of oil is at record levels and increasing. So what do you propose Highlander - we let Saudi Arabia and other middle east countries which have no environmental standards whatsoever meet that demand, or we, a country with strict pollution standards, meet the needs? If its the later, we are going to miss our targets, its as simple as that. So we instead let Saudia Arabia meet the demand, make a lot of money for the Sheiks to build up their military campaign in Yeman, and watch global emissions continue to rise - brilliant, who needs manufacturing, or resource money, we can all make money researching solar panels / getting government subsidies for them...

Highlander II
02-06-2017, 11:38 AM
The solution would be tariffs based on the source country's environmental practices, set equivalent to the cost of meeting our higher standards, set by the pound. We could even use our revenue to fund our part in mitigation overseas. In any case, a huge share of our emissions are consumption, not production. We can reduce our consumption production which can only have positive effects.

re Economic effects, maybe we wouldn't need to worry. I don't see a lot of reports about the poor economic or employment situations in those EU countries that had the hardest reduction targets like Germany, Denmark or the low countries.

Dave
02-06-2017, 11:50 AM
^^^^How is it easier, Moa? We're not talking about having lower per capita levels than we do, where domestic vs. foreign energy sources might have an effect.

If you import most of your oil and gas, you have a service economy rather than a manufacturing or resources economy, of course its easier. One of the easiest ways to meet an emissions target, is to close a manufacturing plant and build it in another country, then import the products from there. Does nothing for global emissions, but you meet your target, Audi puts a plant in Mexico instead of another one in Germany, great. Global consumption of oil is at record levels and increasing. So what do you propose Highlander - we let Saudi Arabia and other middle east countries which have no environmental standards whatsoever meet that demand, or we, a country with strict pollution standards, meet the needs? If its the later, we are going to miss our targets, its as simple as that. So we instead let Saudia Arabia meet the demand, make a lot of money for the Sheiks to build up their military campaign in Yeman, and watch global emissions continue to rise - brilliant, who needs manufacturing, or resource money, we can all make money researching solar panels / getting government subsidies for them...

If that were the case, then US emissions should already be easily falling with all the manufacturing that has supposedly moved to other countries over the last 20 or 30 years.

The middle east was blessed with oil that is easy to extract with less environmental cost. However, their political climate is not so good. That's one of the reasons places like Europe are trying to cut oil consumption and switch to renewables.

Yes, what is happening in Yemen now is terrible, but I don't recall Trump saying anything about it to the Saudi's while he was there. Unlike past US presidents, he didn't say anything about human rights there either.

H.L.
02-06-2017, 11:57 AM
Why are all these countries taking Saudi oil, when they all know about their human rights? It doesn't change no matter who brings it up.Perhaps if countries said no to their oil,then it might change.

Dave
02-06-2017, 12:05 PM
Why are all these countries taking Saudi oil, when they all know about their human rights? It doesn't change no matter who brings it up.Perhaps if countries said no to their oil,then it might change.

Do all the people wearing diamonds know where they were mined? How about people wearing T-shirts made in Bangladesh?

If the US stopped selling weapons to Saudi Arabia that might help too.

There are a lot of things the wealthy and powerful get away with in the world that are not ethical - Saudi is just one example.

H.L.
02-06-2017, 12:09 PM
Why are all these countries taking Saudi oil, when they all know about their human rights? It doesn't change no matter who brings it up.Perhaps if countries said no to their oil,then it might change.

Do all the people wearing diamonds know where they were mined? How about people wearing T-shirts made in Bangladesh?

If the US stopped selling weapons to Saudi Arabia that might help too.

There are a lot of things the wealthy and powerful get away with in the world that are not ethical - Saudi is just one example.

Didnt we also do a deal with Saudi? Umm, yes!
I'm not talking diamonds, I'm talking oil. It seems to me, all this talking does very little. We import oil from countries who have terrible human rights.

Highlander II
02-06-2017, 12:13 PM
So, what you're saying is that since we don't make a big deal about other nation's human rights we shouldn't deal with our own environmental problem?

I suspect that we could do both.

Gemini
02-06-2017, 12:14 PM
If the Saudis had not of got their arms from the U S A I should imagine Canada would have went after the order. In as much the western world gripes about the Middle East they still do business with them.
Trumps pulling out of the Paris agreement is going to slow down the coffers of this accord. The richer countries have to contribute to the poorer countries share. Billions of dollars of money going into countries and how much of it actually goes towards climate change. I should imagine a lot is skimmed off the top and put into private of shore accounts.

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/canada-now-the-second-biggest-arms-exporter-to-middle-east-data-show/article30459788/

H.L.
02-06-2017, 12:18 PM
So, what you're saying is that since we don't make a big deal about other nation's human rights we shouldn't deal with our own environmental problem?

I suspect that we could do both.

But were not.

H.L.
02-06-2017, 12:19 PM
If the Saudis had not of got their arms from the U S A I should imagine Canada would have went after the order. In as much the western world gripes about the Middle East they still do business with them.
Trumps pulling out of the Paris agreement is going to slow down the coffers of this accord. The richer countries have to contribute to the poorer countries share. Billions of dollars of money going into countries and how much of it actually goes towards climate change. I should imagine a lot is skimmed off the top and put into private of shore accounts.

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/canada-now-the-second-biggest-arms-exporter-to-middle-east-data-show/article30459788/

Which is what I posted yesterday. No accountability for this money.smh.

Highlander II
02-06-2017, 12:20 PM
Middle eastern countries are high emitters, and most of them are rich countries, we won't be paying them for mitigation. An you know what else we won't be paying them for??

Oil! if we cut emissions and sufficiently nobody would be buying oil from them, and they wouldn't have money for spreading extremist wahhabi islam or for buying weapons!!

Sounds like a win-win to me!!

H.L.
02-06-2017, 12:22 PM
It sounds like we just go around and around on this issue.

MrOilers
02-06-2017, 12:26 PM
Oil! if we cut emissions and sufficiently nobody would be buying oil from them, and they wouldn't have money for spreading extremist wahhabi islam or for buying weapons!!

Sounds like a win-win to me!!

It does sound good. However, the problem is that a large number of the environmentalists advocating for that are also actively trying to shut down our own domestic oil industry because it's "dirty". They need to pick a side for our fossil fuel source - either domestic, or the Gulf dictatorships.

Highlander II
02-06-2017, 12:32 PM
Yeah, there's definitely some of that out there, especially some of those celebrity oilsands photo-ops over the past few years. they always say something about how it's the most horrific thing they've ever seen.


I've seen the oilsands and to my eyes at least a LA freeway-scape is at least as horrific.

And not to minimize the issues that local first nations still face and the pain in any one situation, but compared to the scale of the rights abuses against the female 50% of the population and the millions of indentured "guest workers" in smaller gulf nations our problems are minute.

Dave
02-06-2017, 01:02 PM
If the Saudis had not of got their arms from the U S A I should imagine Canada would have went after the order. In as much the western world gripes about the Middle East they still do business with them.
Trumps pulling out of the Paris agreement is going to slow down the coffers of this accord. The richer countries have to contribute to the poorer countries share. Billions of dollars of money going into countries and how much of it actually goes towards climate change. I should imagine a lot is skimmed off the top and put into private of shore accounts.

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/canada-now-the-second-biggest-arms-exporter-to-middle-east-data-show/article30459788/

So are you saying that Trump pulling out of the Paris agreement will somehow stop arms sales to Saudi Arabia? I don't think so.

Dave
02-06-2017, 01:08 PM
Oil! if we cut emissions and sufficiently nobody would be buying oil from them, and they wouldn't have money for spreading extremist wahhabi islam or for buying weapons!!

Sounds like a win-win to me!!

It does sound good. However, the problem is that a large number of the environmentalists advocating for that are also actively trying to shut down our own domestic oil industry because it's "dirty". They need to pick a side for our fossil fuel source - either domestic, or the Gulf dictatorships.

Well if their concern is the environment - the oil from the middle east is better. How Saudi Arabia treats people does not affect cause drought in California or cause sea level rise in Miami, etc... I think we would be more successful if we try to address their concerns rather than try distract from them.

All the money spent on creating an "ethical" oil image would be better spent on technology to make oil extraction here more environmental.

Edmonton PRT
02-06-2017, 01:24 PM
All I know is, when I read the thread title 'Trump pulls out of Paris' I thought that Trump was cheating on his third wife...

H.L.
02-06-2017, 01:33 PM
Oil! if we cut emissions and sufficiently nobody would be buying oil from them, and they wouldn't have money for spreading extremist wahhabi islam or for buying weapons!!

Sounds like a win-win to me!!

It does sound good. However, the problem is that a large number of the environmentalists advocating for that are also actively trying to shut down our own domestic oil industry because it's "dirty". They need to pick a side for our fossil fuel source - either domestic, or the Gulf dictatorships.

Well if their concern is the environment - the oil from the middle east is better. How Saudi Arabia treats people does not affect cause drought in California or cause sea level rise in Miami, etc... I think we would be more successful if we try to address their concerns rather than try distract from them.

All the money spent on creating an "ethical" oil image would be better spent on technology to make oil extraction here more environmental.
How does that oil from Saudi get to North America, how environmental is that?
Venezuela rust buckets were banned ( finally) lots of questions, very few answers when it comes to these countries. I'd have a lot of questions if the decision was mine. Pipelines do sometimes leak, but they are still the safest way to transport oil.

Edmonton PRT
02-06-2017, 01:41 PM
Yes, There used to be so many spills every year. Those rust buckets were banned by international and EPA environmental regulations.

You know, the exact thing that Trump wants to get rid of.

Funny how logic comes and bites you in the ***.

MrOilers
02-06-2017, 03:45 PM
And the REAL reasons other nations are upset that the USA pulled out of the Paris agreement are beginning to emerge:



German carmakers fear losing competitive edge after U.S. Paris exit

Germany's powerful car industry said Europe would need to reassess its environmental standards to remain competitive after the United States said it would withdraw from the Paris climate pact.

President Donald Trump said on Thursday he would withdraw the United States from the landmark 2015 global agreement to fight climate change, drawing anger and condemnation from world leaders and heads of industry.

"The regrettable announcement by the USA makes it inevitable that Europe must facilitate a cost efficient and economically feasible climate policy to remain internationally competitive," Matthias Wissmann, president of the German auto industry lobby group VDA, said in a statement on Friday.

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-climatechange-german-carmakers-idUSKBN18T1Q0?utm_campaign=trueAnthem:+Trending+Co ntent&utm_content=5931c4f004d3010e2771c95a&utm_medium=trueAnthem&utm_source=twitter

H.L.
02-06-2017, 04:00 PM
And the REAL reasons other nations are upset that the USA pulled out of the Paris agreement are beginning to emerge:



German carmakers fear losing competitive edge after U.S. Paris exit

Germany's powerful car industry said Europe would need to reassess its environmental standards to remain competitive after the United States said it would withdraw from the Paris climate pact.

President Donald Trump said on Thursday he would withdraw the United States from the landmark 2015 global agreement to fight climate change, drawing anger and condemnation from world leaders and heads of industry.

"The regrettable announcement by the USA makes it inevitable that Europe must facilitate a cost efficient and economically feasible climate policy to remain internationally competitive," Matthias Wissmann, president of the German auto industry lobby group VDA, said in a statement on Friday.

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-climatechange-german-carmakers-idUSKBN18T1Q0?utm_campaign=trueAnthem:+Trending+Co ntent&utm_content=5931c4f004d3010e2771c95a&utm_medium=trueAnthem&utm_source=twitter


LOL, of course they could just lie about emissions, or rig a car........

moahunter
02-06-2017, 04:03 PM
Oil! if we cut emissions and sufficiently nobody would be buying oil from them, and they wouldn't have money for spreading extremist wahhabi islam or for buying weapons!!

Sounds like a win-win to me!!

It does sound good. However, the problem is that a large number of the environmentalists advocating for that are also actively trying to shut down our own domestic oil industry because it's "dirty". They need to pick a side for our fossil fuel source - either domestic, or the Gulf dictatorships.

Well if their concern is the environment - the oil from the middle east is better.
How so? There are zero environmental standards there - there is nobody checking or caring when a pipe leaks, or a well is flared, groundwater contaminated, workers injured killed or polluted (who are imported from poverty stricken countries to do the dirty work), or anything else. You don't see Greenpeace activists doing work there (funny that - seems they don't want to go into a real jail). Then it has to get transported all the way to North America. And that's just the middle east, California has higher emissions in producing oil than we do in Canada. What we don't produce, they can ramp up.

Former oil sands plant:

https://www.earthmagazine.org/sites/earthmagazine.org/files/1324689404/i-363-7da-2-16.jpg

Former well in Azerbaijan:

http://www.web1.cnre.vt.edu/lsg/3104/GEOG%20Proj/Alyssa-Oil%20Pollution/ProjectPictures/azerbaijan.jpg

MrOilers
02-06-2017, 04:04 PM
Yeah, it's not like a German car company (like Volkswagon, for instance) would ever cook their books to make it appear that their emissions were less harmful or anything. Right?

H.L.
02-06-2017, 05:17 PM
Yeah, it's not like a German car company (like Volkswagon, for instance) would ever cook their books to make it appear that their emissions were less harmful or anything. Right?
No way!

Spudly
02-06-2017, 05:20 PM
Trump pulling out of the Paris accord had nothing to do with the accord. Trump needs a "win", and sticking his thumb in the eye of the rest of the world counts, in his mind, as a "win". The silly old bugger thinks it's some kind of deal that his elite negotiating skills, as yet all but invisible, will make somehow better for the people he pretends to care about. But it mostly makes him feel accomplished.

Gemini
02-06-2017, 05:29 PM
More than 2,400 coal-fired power stations are under construction or being planned around the world, a study has revealed two weeks after Britain pledged to stop burning coal.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/12/02/the-truth-about-china-2400-new-coal-plants-will-thwart-any-paris-cop21-pledges/

The Paris Accord really is something.
Even if half of these coal-fired plants are moth balled the world will still go ahead and build the other half. Trump maybe knows a 'scheme' when he sees one.

Dave
02-06-2017, 05:52 PM
Yeah, it's not like a German car company (like Volkswagon, for instance) would ever cook their books to make it appear that their emissions were less harmful or anything. Right?
No way!

That's like ... so 2016.

I am sure they are wishing right now the EPA didn't catch on to their tricks.

jagators63
02-06-2017, 06:10 PM
President Donald Trump used a Massachusetts Institute of Technology study to back up his departure from the Paris climate agreement on Thutrsday. But one of the study's authors says the President misinterpreted their data, showing "a complete misunderstanding of the climate problem."

http://www.cnn.com/2017/06/02/politics/trump-mit-study-paris-agreement/index.html?sr=fbCNN060217trump-mit-study-paris-agreement0930PMStoryLink&linkId=38304060

Spudly
02-06-2017, 06:11 PM
More than 2,400 coal-fired power stations are under construction or being planned around the world, a study has revealed two weeks after Britain pledged to stop burning coal.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/12/02/the-truth-about-china-2400-new-coal-plants-will-thwart-any-paris-cop21-pledges/

The Paris Accord really is something.
Even if half of these coal-fired plants are moth balled the world will still go ahead and build the other half. Trump maybe knows a 'scheme' when he sees one.

It's a story about a story by James Delingpole, agent provocateur from Breitbart. I'd wait for someone with more credibility and less historical raving to report the same before I got interested.

Spudly
02-06-2017, 06:28 PM
President Donald Trump used a Massachusetts Institute of Technology study to back up his departure from the Paris climate agreement on Thutrsday. But one of the study's authors says the President misinterpreted their data, showing "a complete misunderstanding of the climate problem."

http://www.cnn.com/2017/06/02/politics/trump-mit-study-paris-agreement/index.html?sr=fbCNN060217trump-mit-study-paris-agreement0930PMStoryLink&linkId=38304060


More specifically, Steve Bannon pulled that misinterpretation into the speech he wrote for Trump. That wasn't a Trump speech, Trump read Bannon's words off the teleprompter. Bannon sees and has seized an opportunity to use Trump as a puppet for his worldview agenda. For now, Bannon has Trump's ear: Kushner is looking dirty and maybe having second thoughts about his father-in-law's mental stability. Blood may be thicker than water, but Trump is not afraid to turn on his kin if his inner 8-year-old cries out for it. He did it with his brother's family, with his longtime mentor Roy Cohn, and other entities that became inconvenient, got in the way, or weren't useful anymore.

There's plenty more inanity in the speech that Bannon has seen as being understandable, memorable, and palatable to Trump so he'll deliver the message(s).

H.L.
02-06-2017, 07:59 PM
Yeah, it's not like a German car company (like Volkswagon, for instance) would ever cook their books to make it appear that their emissions were less harmful or anything. Right?
No way!

That's like ... so 2016.

I am sure they are wishing right now the EPA didn't catch on to their tricks.
Its 2017,so last year. Don't make it sound like it was in 1990!

Edmonton PRT
02-06-2017, 08:06 PM
But VW was caught and has paid billions of dollars in penalties.


See, justice was served.

Edmonton PRT
03-06-2017, 08:04 AM
Donald Trump Claims to Champion Pittsburgh Over Paris. He Knows Nothing of Pittsburgh.

http://www.slate.com/blogs/moneybox/2017/06/01/donald_trump_claims_to_champion_pittsburgh_over_pa ris_he_knows_nothing_of.html

And if Paris was the symbol of that ideology, the alternative, a nation of miners and pipelines, belching smoke like a charcoal grill, was represented by … Pittsburgh? “I was elected to represent the citizens of Pittsburgh, not Paris,” Trump said.


But it was an especially bad comparison because Pittsburgh isn’t the burned-out steel town Trump thinks it is. In fact, it’s a pretty good example of how a city can recover and adapt to changing economic circumstances. Pittsburgh’s doing OK.

Once again, Donald Trump has shown himself a man who has acquired little to no new knowledge since the 1980s. And during the 1980s, Pittsburgh was indeed having a very tough time. The city lost 30 percent of its population between 1970 and 1990; in 1983, unemployment in the Pittsburgh metropolitan area hit 17 percent. Neighboring counties fared even worse. Deindustrialization and globalization slammed the Monongahela Valley. But that was 35 years ago.


Today, Pittsburgh’s biggest employer is the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center. Its other university, Carnegie Mellon, is home to a world-renowned robotics laboratory. The Golden Triangle is a landmark of downtown renewal. And Homestead, site of the great American labor battle of the 19th century, is a mall.

Before Pittsburgh was the poster child for a midsized, postindustrial city, it was a symbol of the ills of pollution. The soot from the steel mills hung so thick in the air the streetlights had to be on during the day. In 1948, 25 miles south of the city, the town of Donora was enveloped in a thick yellow smog that killed 20 people and sickened half the town. It was the worst air pollution disaster in U.S. history and led to the passage of the Clean Air Act.


There’s no city in America that stands to benefit from climate change, whose enormous costs are and will continue to be borne mostly by the federal government (and hence distributed among us). But as a symbol for withdrawal from a global climate treaty, Pittsburgh is an especially poor choice.

East McCauley
03-06-2017, 10:22 AM
Trump pulling out of the Paris accord had nothing to do with the accord. Trump needs a "win", and sticking his thumb in the eye of the rest of the world counts, in his mind, as a "win". The silly old bugger thinks it's some kind of deal that his elite negotiating skills, as yet all but invisible, will make somehow better for the people he pretends to care about. But it mostly makes him feel accomplished.

After reading transcripts of both Trump and Pruitt's remarks when they pulled the plug, I'm inclined to agree with the above analysis.

As a number of commentators have pointed out, the Paris agreement GHG targets are based on Nationally Determined Contributions (NDC). These are targets countries determine themselves, not imposed on them externally. The Obama Administration's target of a 17% reduction in GHGs by 2020 and 26-28% by 2025 were based mainly on two policies. The Clean Power Plan which is mostly about expediting the phasing out coal in favour of natural gas and renewables in electricity generation, and phasing in fuel efficiency standards nation-wide that are already in place in states like California.

Funny thing is that the US was already about 40% of the way there to 2020 (a 7% reduction between 2005 to 2014). Source: https://www.epa.gov/climate-indicators/climate-change-indicators-us-greenhouse-gas-emissions

As an alternative to withdrawing from the Paris agreement, the US could have revised its NDC to what it thought could be achieved in the absence of the additional regulations being put in place by the previous Administration.

BTW, at some point Canada may have revise its NDC as we have only reduced GHGs by 2% between 2005 and 2015, less than one-eighth of our 17% reduction target by 2020. Source: https://www.ec.gc.ca/GES-GHG/default.asp?lang=En&n=662F9C56-1#trends

Edmonton PRT
03-06-2017, 11:00 AM
A grand total of Americans employed by the coal industry.

66,000

Number of non-coal industry jobs added in the month of May alone. 137,000

Realization.

The coal industry is a sliver of a fraction of the American conomy and a minor voting block that Trump expounds as critical to his new dirty economy.

champking
03-06-2017, 11:30 AM
A grand total of Americans employed by the coal industry.

66,000

Number of non-coal industry jobs added in the month of May alone. 137,000

Realization.

The coal industry is a sliver of a fraction of the American conomy and a minor voting block that Trump expounds as critical to his new dirty economy.
Same could be said about Alberta's oilsands for its only a sliver a jobs in a grand scale

jagators63
03-06-2017, 04:06 PM
But VW was caught and has paid billions of dollars in penalties.


See, justice was served.


GM were caught cheating on Diesel emissions

http://www.nbcnews.com/business/autos/gm-accused-cheating-diesel-emissions-n765146

KC
03-06-2017, 05:09 PM
But VW was caught and has paid billions of dollars in penalties.


See, justice was served.


GM were caught cheating on Diesel emissions

http://www.nbcnews.com/business/autos/gm-accused-cheating-diesel-emissions-n765146

The claim so far is that they were caught. Maybe a neutral party will confirm it.

champking
03-06-2017, 07:11 PM
Why the hell should India put money in? Their emissions are 1.9t. per capita, ours are 15.5t per capita, 8 times as much. They are also much poorer - and they have their own very poor areas that will likely be hit hard by climate change - their own places to do mitigation and their own work to get their population out of extreme poverty without increasing emissions.
I thought you cared about reducing greenhouse gas emissions. If that's the goal - reducing the emissions of the biggest emitters is what matters - not the "per capita" emissions. Oh - hold on, seems not the goal, its a poverty re-distribution fund, which makes Obama feel better with his enlightened family and friends sipping lattes on the yacht.
Clearly Moahunter the Russians have got you brainwashed . ,

do what Obama sais not as he does ....

champking
03-06-2017, 07:24 PM
there's more to life than money. That seems to be all trump supporters care about though.

As a Trump supporters I can tell you that's not true . What's most important is Freedom , rights , less government ....most us are libertarians and yes do love money for its what puts my family through school, puts food on the table .

Medwards
03-06-2017, 09:09 PM
gotta take care of our world too.

champking
03-06-2017, 09:24 PM
gotta take care of our world too.

If you believe in that but from horticulture I can tell you that CO2 is a good thing. I can pump it in to my greenhouse and increase plant/ food production by 30%. I have the solar panels ...I even ( defiantly) had windmills in the city . I'm one of the very few who has lived a green lifestyle ....I couldn't do all those things giving Notely or some globalist all my money....

What they don't talk about is the heavy metals , the pesticides---the killing of our bee populations ...that's what will destroy our species....our planet will always be here unless destroy by an asteroid, Nuked In To oblivion

Dave
03-06-2017, 10:31 PM
gotta take care of our world too.

If you believe in that but from horticulture I can tell you that CO2 is a good thing. I can pump it in to my greenhouse and increase plant/ food production by 30%. I have the solar panels ...I even ( defiantly) had windmills in the city . I'm one of the very few who has lived a green lifestyle ....I couldn't do all those things giving Notely or some globalist all my money....

What they don't talk about is the heavy metals , the pesticides---the killing of our bee populations ...that's what will destroy our species....our planet will always be here unless destroy by an asteroid, Nuked In To oblivion

Oh the planet will still be here, that's not the problem. Maybe New York and Miami will be underwater after the ice caps melt and many tropical places will be too unbearably hot to live, many plant and animals will not be able to adapt to unpredictable and quickly changing weather patterns, but the planet will still be "here". Mars and Venus are still "here" too but without plants and animals.

Those plants that love the COO2 will probably have trouble with the more frequent droughts and floods though.

There is no carbon tax on your supposed solar panels or windmills, so I have no idea why the heck you are going on about the globalist Notley. Maybe too much heavy metals in your corn flakes.

MrOilers
03-06-2017, 11:19 PM
Maybe New York and Miami will be underwater after the ice caps melt and many tropical places will be too unbearably hot to live, many plant and animals will not be able to adapt to unpredictable and quickly changing weather patterns

I've been hearing this for decades. In fact, lots of it was supposed to have happened already.

There are people labeled as "climate change deniers". I think it's time to start calling some people "climate change exaggerators".

champking
04-06-2017, 08:11 AM
Dave : I'm not about to give Notely my money on a 'maybe ' they either know what their talking about or they don't. And, like Mr. Oilers states, listened to the Al Gore types New York was to be flooded by now

kcantor
04-06-2017, 08:18 AM
A grand total of Americans employed by the coal industry.

66,000

Number of non-coal industry jobs added in the month of May alone. 137,000

Realization.

The coal industry is a sliver of a fraction of the American conomy and a minor voting block that Trump expounds as critical to his new dirty economy.i think the 66,000 is a selective number meant to make a point, not reflect reality. it's part of a larger whole. the impact of coal doesn't come from mining it, it comes from the entire chain that ends up using the products resulting from burning it. it's the entire chain that needs modification and miners as miners are just the canaries. the job losses will include shipping and construction and plant maintenance and manufacturing - in some cases - like steel - it will include entire industries. will the replacement technologies provide offsetting economic activity? that's usually answered with a yes but those that say yes too often fall back on the inclusion of those same upstream and downstream jobs when they say there are more green jobs to be created than miners' jobs lost.

champking
04-06-2017, 08:44 AM
Let's look at a worst case scenario . Things warm up and we don't suffer these cold winters . We're able to grow peaches , cherry, tropical fruits. Alberta maybe even gets a coast line .
To think that the planet never changes or that our species shouldn't have to relocate ., when since our earliest settlers always moved either because of floods , drought , too fallow the carabou. It's a fact of life . Best learn how to adapt ...it's like Alberta's unwillingness to diversify , then people cry they don't have jobs , when they should be learning new skills , relocating .

KC
04-06-2017, 08:46 AM
A grand total of Americans employed by the coal industry.

66,000

Number of non-coal industry jobs added in the month of May alone. 137,000

Realization.

The coal industry is a sliver of a fraction of the American conomy and a minor voting block that Trump expounds as critical to his new dirty economy.i think the 66,000 is a selective number meant to make a point, not reflect reality. it's part of a larger whole. the impact of coal doesn't come from mining it, it comes from the entire chain that ends up using the products resulting from burning it. it's the entire chain that needs modification and miners as miners are just the canaries. the job losses will include shipping and construction and plant maintenance and manufacturing - in some cases - like steel - it will include entire industries. will the replacement technologies provide offsetting economic activity? that's usually answered with a yes but those that say yes too often fall back on the inclusion of those same upstream and downstream jobs when they say there are more green jobs to be created than miners' jobs lost.


The whole problem is that the replacement jobs created out of change DO NOT arise for the same workers, the same families, the same towns, the same regions. Telling the loser in a game of poker that change is good is nonsense. A permanent loss is a permanent loss. In zero sum and net positive sum games the losses then accrue as gains in someone else's pocket.

Coal provides cheap electricity. Cheap electricity permits all kinds of associated economic activity, a small portion of which would enable the production of some good or service. Most activity though would simply allow consumers to pocket some savings to be spent elsewhere - so no real gain.

Paying more using higher cost coal or higher cost alternative such as green energy simply transfers what would be savings into the pockets of the higher cost entities to them spend to create jobs elsewhere.

Some pure efficiencies though can result if say solar eliminates the "make work" effect if digging ditches of coal seams and then filling them in again. (A simple mechanization/ automation effect.) both coal and solar are natural resources - essentially free for the taking but each creating conversion costs and huge negative impacts.



Whose Ox is Gored? |

"...
Competitive Arguments: Professor Campbell raised an important point on the need to think consciously about competing arguments. Economists may argue that trade imbalances accumulation (and national trade deficit) may not be detrimental to the aspects of gross domestic product and economic growth rate, and even other economic indicators such as unemployment rate. My understanding is that macroeconomists tend not to take trade imbalances (and its size) too seriously as an independent variable. But from an IPE perspective, inevitably there are trade conflicts, political pressures surrounding the agenda, and outcomes resulting from these conflicts which can be traced back to trade imbalances. Comparative disadvantage in trade is always what drives voting behavior in national elections, as long as there seems to be an industrial loss or unemployment due to the trade imbalances.

There are some bottom-lines suggested by Professor Campbell: one, if the research question is really on why the U.S. chooses to file certain cases and some cases not, and if the question is really on the decision-making of the USTR, to what extent trade imbalances motivate the US policy decision making, then the conditions regarding the filing of the cases would be central key factors to explain for. Two, differentiating whether it is macro-aggregate trade deficit or sectoral trade deficit would be important. In the latter case, there are specific things you can look into. Given the latter situation, when industry competitions get severe, the likelihood of trade deficit accumulation has always been low. Since the mid-70’s, the U.S. has imported more goods that it has exported. This balance began to improve in the early `90s but has again significantly increased. Some believe the trade deficit is evidence that American companies are failing to compete in global markets or that U.S. exporters face “unfair” trade barriers abroad. Other economists observe that it is the sign of a healthy economy which has the resources to purchase a large volume of goods. In fact, they note that from 1992 to 1997, the U.S. trade deficit almost tripled, while at the same time U.S. industrial production increased by 24 percent and manufacturing output by 27 percent (See Griswold). ..."

http://blogs.bu.edu/junepark/2011/10/03/whose-ox-is-gored/

KC
04-06-2017, 09:03 AM
Let's look at a worst case scenario . Things warm up and we don't suffer these cold winters . We're able to grow peaches , cherry, tropical fruits. Alberta maybe even gets a coast line .
To think that the planet never changes or that our species shouldn't have to relocate ., when since our earliest settlers always moved either because of floods , drought , too fallow the carabou. It's a fact of life . Best learn how to adapt ...it's like Alberta's unwillingness to diversify , then people cry they don't have jobs , when they should be learning new skills , relocating .

Sounds nice. However there's always the devil you don't know issue. The unintended consequences, or rather, unpredicted effects. Simply redistributing the weight of water on the earth' crust combined with gravitational pull does what? I have no idea. Could it trigger slippage of the earths plates? Simple fracing causes earthquakes. So could new large volcanoes result? They tend to trigger the odd mass extinction.

kcantor
04-06-2017, 09:13 AM
^^
there's nothing new there when it comes to outdated jobs. whether it's miners or cod fishermen or type setters or telephone operators or the proverbial buggy whip maker, jobs by category have always been a disappearing thing. the necessary response - retraining and/or relocation - to that hasn't changed and trying to protect them for their own sakes will fail just as making light of the consequences instead of building and executing that response will also fail.

champking
04-06-2017, 09:38 AM
Let's look at a worst case scenario . Things warm up and we don't suffer these cold winters . We're able to grow peaches , cherry, tropical fruits. Alberta maybe even gets a coast line .
To think that the planet never changes or that our species shouldn't have to relocate ., when since our earliest settlers always moved either because of floods , drought , too fallow the carabou. It's a fact of life . Best learn how to adapt ...it's like Alberta's unwillingness to diversify , then people cry they don't have jobs , when they should be learning new skills , relocating .

Sounds nice. However there's always the devil you don't know issue. The unintended consequences, or rather, unpredicted effects. Simply redistributing the weight of water on the earth' crust combined with gravitational pull does what? I have no idea. Could it trigger slippage of the earths plates? Simple fracing causes earthquakes. So could new large volcanoes result? They tend to trigger the odd mass extinction.

Possibly..but there's also greater chance of poking the Russian bear who's said they would set off a tactical Nuke in Yellowstone. Plunging 70% of the U.S In to darkness. All the ash would render all our combustion engines inoperative, plug our filtration systems , contaminate our water supply. The same Clinton / Obama types couldn't care....let's keep poking the Bear . Where as Trump wants to build relationships, mitigate a war , such attacks . To me that would be if greater concern , than a ' maybe ' our planet may flood, a maybe set off a volcano.

Yet the Trudeau have our troops building up on Russian boarder and the way their defense systems work, it's not even up to Putin or their Generals ,....it's all automated. So should there be a first strike their systems automatically start nuking everything .

Edmonton PRT
04-06-2017, 10:19 AM
The chances of a tactical nuclear device setting off a volcano is almost zero. You are talking foolishness.

KC
04-06-2017, 10:21 AM
The chances of a tactical nuclear device setting off a volcano is almost zero. You are talking foolishness.

That's an interesting idea though.

champking
04-06-2017, 10:40 AM
The chances of a tactical nuclear device setting off a volcano is almost zero. You are talking foolishness.

That's kinda like how Trump could warn us all about these voting systems being hacked . But the left said it's not possible / it's fake ...but , the second they lose " we been hacked ! Lol

I would believe a General and the scientist behind over some guy just saying it's not possible. For can you provide any supportive evidence ? What experience do you have on the subject ?

KC
04-06-2017, 10:41 AM
Let's look at a worst case scenario . Things warm up and we don't suffer these cold winters . We're able to grow peaches , cherry, tropical fruits. Alberta maybe even gets a coast line .
To think that the planet never changes or that our species shouldn't have to relocate ., when since our earliest settlers always moved either because of floods , drought , too fallow the carabou. It's a fact of life . Best learn how to adapt ...it's like Alberta's unwillingness to diversify , then people cry they don't have jobs , when they should be learning new skills , relocating .

Sounds nice. However there's always the devil you don't know issue. The unintended consequences, or rather, unpredicted effects. Simply redistributing the weight of water on the earth' crust combined with gravitational pull does what? I have no idea. Could it trigger slippage of the earths plates? Simple fracing causes earthquakes. So could new large volcanoes result? They tend to trigger the odd mass extinction.

Possibly..but there's also greater chance of poking the Russian bear who's said they would set off a tactical Nuke in Yellowstone. Plunging 70% of the U.S In to darkness. All the ash would render all our combustion engines inoperative, plug our filtration systems , contaminate our water supply. The same Clinton / Obama types couldn't care....let's keep poking the Bear . Where as Trump wants to build relationships, mitigate a war , such attacks . To me that would be if greater concern , than a ' maybe ' our planet may flood, a maybe set off a volcano.

Yet the Trudeau have our troops building up on Russian boarder and the way their defense systems work, it's not even up to Putin or their Generals ,....it's all automated. So should there be a first strike their systems automatically start nuking everything .

It would be great to just have normal peaceful relations but the Cold War never ended for either side. Was NATO opportunistic in Georgia? Were the newly independent nations seeking to defend themselves from a Russia seeking to repossess old colonies? Both? Were the fears realistic? Is NATO still seeking to contain Russia? Is Russia seeking to expand its shere of influence? The US? (Of course.)


Note this perspective:



Russia, Georgia, and independence in the age of imperialism

By Saul KanowitzAug 15, 2008
The U.S. government and media have portrayed the latest conflict between Russia and Georgia over South Ossetia and Abkhazia as a resumption of Russia’s Soviet-era “domination” over the smaller, beleaguered country of Georgia.

But in fact, on Aug. 8, the Georgian government initiated a sudden bombing and artillery attack on South Ossetia’s capital city Tskhinvali. The Georgian military hoped to reclaim the small region of 1,505 square miles, which has tried to exercise its proclaimed independence since 1990. Georgian forces bombed and fired missiles against South Ossetia’s civilian population, but were quickly driven out by Russian troops.


Georgia’s swift defeat has come as a shock to Washington, which had poured vast resources into the country’s military. ...

President George Bush, and presidential hopefuls Barack Obama and John McCain have denounced Russia ...

George W. Bush, speaking at an Aug. 13 press conference, said: “The United States stands with the democratically-elected government of Georgia. We insist that the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Georgia be respected.”

This straight-faced statement comes from ...U.S. occupation ..

John McCain, not to be outdone by a sitting president, ...

Barack Obama also issued a statement on Aug. 11, writing, “[T]he U.N. must stand up for the sovereignty of its members, and peace in the world.” Obama has pledged to continue the U.S. blockade of Cuba ...

These capitalist politicians feign concern for the Georgian people and are outraged at Russia’s actions. However, their real fear is that the Russian military victory represents a setback for U.S. geostrategic designs for the region.

Overthrow of USSR paves the way for imperialist penetration...

The recent actions by Georgia’s government were not those of an independent nation but those of a close U.S. ally. President Mikheil Saakashvili was elected in 2004 following the U.S.-engineered “Rose Revolution.” Since then, Saakashvili has moved quickly to fashion the country’s domestic and foreign policy in line with Washington in the hopes of joining the imperialist NATO military alliance.

On Aug. 7, the day before Georgian troops attacked South Ossetia, Immediate Response 2008—a joint U.S.-Georgian military exercise involving more than 1,000 U.S. Army, Marine and National Guard troops—was concluded. The Pentagon also flew Georgia’s 2,000 troops fighting in Iraq, the third largest contingent of the occupation forces, back to their home country to bolster Washington’s proxy forces.


https://www.liberationnews.org/08-08-15-russia-georgia-independence-in-html/





The New (Old) Russian Imperialism - Georgia-Russia Crisis - TIME
By Yuri Zarakhovich / MoscowWednesday, Aug. 13, 2008

"...

Nevertheless, the nationalist march continues. This week, the Moscow daily Vremya Novostei ran a story on a new high school history book recommended by the Russian government. It praises Stalin as "the protector of the system" and "a consistent supporter of the transformation of the country into an industrial society, administered from a single center." The textbook also maintains that "the introduction of Soviet forces onto the territory of Poland in 1939 was for the liberation of the territories of Ukraine and Belarus," and that the absorption of the Baltic states and Bessarabia (now the independent country of Moldova) was appropriate because "earlier they were part of the Russian Empire."

So, what earlier parts of the Russian Empire might be reacquired next? Moldova's own breakaway province, Trans-Dniestria, has been controlled since 1993 by Russian peacekeepers in the same fashion they "kept peace" in South Ossetia and Abkhazia. There is Ukraine's Crimea, which is still the Russian Fleet's Black Sea base and is densely populated with ethnic Russians who, the Kremlin keeps hinting, might need the Motherland's protection. ..."

http://content.time.com/time/specials/packages/article/0,28804,1832294_1832295_1836234,00.html

champking
04-06-2017, 10:58 AM
Every government / territory or could be a corporation or elitist looks to expand either via sheer force , Annexation , legally.

Will use the city of Edmonton as example who wants to Annex our land , take over control , rule over all of us. It's how it's always been , always will be . The best we can do is try mitigate the losses, casualty's. Either us humans , our wild animals . Paving over our best farm land. Or in case Georgia / Crimea

Look at Nutley declaring war on the province of B.C ...it's expansionist

Replacement
04-06-2017, 11:07 AM
Trump pulling out of the Paris accord had nothing to do with the accord. Trump needs a "win", and sticking his thumb in the eye of the rest of the world counts, in his mind, as a "win". The silly old bugger thinks it's some kind of deal that his elite negotiating skills, as yet all but invisible, will make somehow better for the people he pretends to care about. But it mostly makes him feel accomplished.

No, depressingly Trump pulling out caters to American self interest, protectionism, me first philosophy that increasingly defines that Nation. In this purview the world doesn't exist, its out there, the only thing that matters is US interests. Theres no shortage of US electorate that will support that kind of short sighted direction.

Trump is president by promising to cater to these types of national interests. People forget that.

Replacement
04-06-2017, 11:13 AM
Donald Trump Claims to Champion Pittsburgh Over Paris. He Knows Nothing of Pittsburgh.

http://www.slate.com/blogs/moneybox/2017/06/01/donald_trump_claims_to_champion_pittsburgh_over_pa ris_he_knows_nothing_of.html

And if Paris was the symbol of that ideology, the alternative, a nation of miners and pipelines, belching smoke like a charcoal grill, was represented by … Pittsburgh? “I was elected to represent the citizens of Pittsburgh, not Paris,” Trump said.


But it was an especially bad comparison because Pittsburgh isn’t the burned-out steel town Trump thinks it is. In fact, it’s a pretty good example of how a city can recover and adapt to changing economic circumstances. Pittsburgh’s doing OK.

Once again, Donald Trump has shown himself a man who has acquired little to no new knowledge since the 1980s. And during the 1980s, Pittsburgh was indeed having a very tough time. The city lost 30 percent of its population between 1970 and 1990; in 1983, unemployment in the Pittsburgh metropolitan area hit 17 percent. Neighboring counties fared even worse. Deindustrialization and globalization slammed the Monongahela Valley. But that was 35 years ago.


Today, Pittsburgh’s biggest employer is the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center. Its other university, Carnegie Mellon, is home to a world-renowned robotics laboratory. The Golden Triangle is a landmark of downtown renewal. And Homestead, site of the great American labor battle of the 19th century, is a mall.

Before Pittsburgh was the poster child for a midsized, postindustrial city, it was a symbol of the ills of pollution. The soot from the steel mills hung so thick in the air the streetlights had to be on during the day. In 1948, 25 miles south of the city, the town of Donora was enveloped in a thick yellow smog that killed 20 people and sickened half the town. It was the worst air pollution disaster in U.S. history and led to the passage of the Clean Air Act.


There’s no city in America that stands to benefit from climate change, whose enormous costs are and will continue to be borne mostly by the federal government (and hence distributed among us). But as a symbol for withdrawal from a global climate treaty, Pittsburgh is an especially poor choice.


He knows alliteration. That's the degree of thought that went into the phrased comparison. Theres no real comparable, its playing alphabet soup sesame street. First Manhattan takes Moscow and Boston over Berlin. That kind of thing.

champking
04-06-2017, 11:16 AM
Trump pulling out of the Paris accord had nothing to do with the accord. Trump needs a "win", and sticking his thumb in the eye of the rest of the world counts, in his mind, as a "win". The silly old bugger thinks it's some kind of deal that his elite negotiating skills, as yet all but invisible, will make somehow better for the people he pretends to care about. But it mostly makes him feel accomplished.

No, depressingly Trump pulling out caters to American self interest, protectionism, me first philosophy that increasingly defines that Nation. In this purview the world doesn't exist, its out there, the only thing that matters is US interests. Theres no shortage of US electorate that will support that kind of short sighted direction.

Trump is president by promising to cater to these types of national interests. People forget that.
The problem with globalism is that 1 bad move destroys us all. Eg. 2008 sub prime or PIG nations debt .

Much like our electrical grid , should it go down , solar flare everybody be hooped, we be plunged in to darkness and chaos where as if : we all micro generated our power , had our solar panels etc ...or all had our own gardens , chickens . Bees etc not only would we not have to give the system our money , we be protecting ourself ----hence protectionism

Replacement
04-06-2017, 11:33 AM
Trump pulling out of the Paris accord had nothing to do with the accord. Trump needs a "win", and sticking his thumb in the eye of the rest of the world counts, in his mind, as a "win". The silly old bugger thinks it's some kind of deal that his elite negotiating skills, as yet all but invisible, will make somehow better for the people he pretends to care about. But it mostly makes him feel accomplished.

No, depressingly Trump pulling out caters to American self interest, protectionism, me first philosophy that increasingly defines that Nation. In this purview the world doesn't exist, its out there, the only thing that matters is US interests. Theres no shortage of US electorate that will support that kind of short sighted direction.

Trump is president by promising to cater to these types of national interests. People forget that.
The problem with globalism is that 1 bad move destroys us all. Eg. 2008 sub prime or PIG nations debt .

Communist China wouldn't be such a threat for it still be closed off to the world and poor. The Saudis wouldn't be so powerful and rich.

Where as Canada ...who has all these resources can't even look after self, we're dependent , we're vulnerable .

Theres a careful what one wishes for message. Particularly with China. With that country transitioning inevitably from Communism to eventual capitalism its of course given rise to that country having increased pockets of wealth and spending and consuming. With all the environmental cost that creates. With a significant chunk of the world population. China increasing its economic vitality is a global disaster on the scale that all the rest of the countries on Earth combined likely can't make up for.

To the next point that per capita comparisons of ecological footprint that have been made in the thread are misleading. China and India being countries that had rampant out of control birth rates for centuries while Canada has always had a responsible and maintainable birth rate and the only reason our population increases is through net immigration.

To use per capita emissions comparisons is innately unfair to Canada. The biggest part of reducing human footprint on the world is limiting the exponential population growth first. Countries that historically haven't done that have not even started to be ecologically responsible and should certainly not be in the position of telling Canada what to do. As protectionist as that might sound.

champking
04-06-2017, 11:51 AM
Trump pulling out of the Paris accord had nothing to do with the accord. Trump needs a "win", and sticking his thumb in the eye of the rest of the world counts, in his mind, as a "win". The silly old bugger thinks it's some kind of deal that his elite negotiating skills, as yet all but invisible, will make somehow better for the people he pretends to care about. But it mostly makes him feel accomplished.

No, depressingly Trump pulling out caters to American self interest, protectionism, me first philosophy that increasingly defines that Nation. In this purview the world doesn't exist, its out there, the only thing that matters is US interests. Theres no shortage of US electorate that will support that kind of short sighted direction.

Trump is president by promising to cater to these types of national interests. People forget that.
The problem with globalism is that 1 bad move destroys us all. Eg. 2008 sub prime or PIG nations debt .

Communist China wouldn't be such a threat for it still be closed off to the world and poor. The Saudis wouldn't be so powerful and rich.

Where as Canada ...who has all these resources can't even look after self, we're dependent , we're vulnerable .

Theres a careful what one wishes for message. Particularly with China. With that country transitioning inevitably from Communism to eventual capitalism its of course given rise to that country having increased pockets of wealth and spending and consuming. With all the environmental cost that creates. With a significant chunk of the world population. China increasing its economic vitality is a global disaster on the scale that all the rest of the countries on Earth combined likely can't make up for.

To the next point that per capita comparisons of ecological footprint that have been made in the thread are misleading. China and India being countries that had rampant out of control birth rates for centuries while Canada has always had a responsible and maintainable birth rate and the only reason our population increases is through net immigration.

To use per capita emissions comparisons is innately unfair to Canada. The biggest part of reducing human footprint on the world is limiting the exponential population growth first. Countries that historically haven't done that have not even started to be ecologically responsible and should certainly not be in the position of telling Canada what to do. As protectionist as that might sound.

Glad you see that. Scary thought is it ? Specially if we see the ' New world order ' for what it is . Consolidating all the world's power in to one. If we look it's the dictators <___IMF, the communists , the Saudis who are gaining the control . Soon as we give up and they control the reserve currency ....we're done for . We can kiss our sovereignty, our democracy , rights and freedoms goodbye . With robotics and technology ....taking our guns , last defences ...the people won't be able fight back.

MrOilers
04-06-2017, 12:14 PM
Huh. Even Al Gore admits that the Paris Accord won't solve the problem of climate change:

https://twitter.com/joshdcaplan/status/871390636775178240

Medwards
05-06-2017, 07:47 AM
Read a bit more on what Al Gore has to say.

moahunter
05-06-2017, 07:56 AM
^https://renaissanceronin.files.wordpress.com/2008/11/al-gore-plane.gif

Medwards
05-06-2017, 08:01 AM
cute picture.

Climate change is still a real world problem. Obviously, as your employer is kinder morgan, you care more about profits of oil companies than the health of the world.

MrOilers
05-06-2017, 08:33 AM
That cartoon perfectly exemplifies the worst attitude we commonly see from the left -

"Everybody needs to change what they are doing for the better good." but "Me? No, someone else needs to do it. Someone else needs to pay for it. I won't be that example of how to do it. Someone else needs to. Not me, but someone."

H.L.
05-06-2017, 08:44 AM
That cartoon perfectly exemplifies the worst attitude we commonly see from the left -

"Everybody needs to change what they are doing for the better good." but "Me? No, someone else needs to do it. Someone else needs to pay for it. I won't be that example of how to do it. Someone else needs to. Not me, but someone."

Especially All Gore! Hypocritical blowhard.

Top_Dawg
05-06-2017, 08:46 AM
Yeah, Top_Dawg hears Mr. Oil.

They always preach what everybody else should be doing.

But never for a moment would they inconvenience themselves by doing what they advocate everyone else should be doing.

noodle
05-06-2017, 08:47 AM
And what Al Gore does doesn't change the validity of what he says, despite what the right-wingers would like everyone to believe.

No amount of ad hominems & tu quoque fallacious arguments will change that & if that's all you've got in your toolkit to try and discredit climate change & the need to address it you've already lost. You're just too ignorant to realize it.

E: Priceless to see more of the right wing contingent all parrot MrOilers crap. Hilarious! It's always nice when you're so conveniently blatant in displaying your ignorance.

Replacement
05-06-2017, 09:11 AM
And what Al Gore does doesn't change the validity of what he says, despite what the right-wingers would like everyone to believe.

No amount of ad hominems & tu quoque fallacious arguments will change that & if that's all you've got in your toolkit to try and discredit climate change & the need to address it you've already lost. You're just too ignorant to realize it.

E: Priceless to see more of the right wing contingent all parrot MrOilers crap. Hilarious! It's always nice when you're so conveniently blatant in displaying your ignorance.

In fairness is practice what one preaches now dead as a concept? Why not be consistent with ones convictions and utilize accordingly?

If you stated what Gore does doesn't change scientific validity of info presented then of course I agree. But does such inconsistency call into question the validity of the persons missive? How much of a mission is Gore environmentalism if he doesn't even practice?

noodle
05-06-2017, 09:23 AM
In fairness is practice what one preaches now dead as a concept?

No, it's still a fine maxim & a good guide to avoiding hypocrisy.



Why not be consistent with ones convictions and utilize accordingly?

Because sometimes compromise is called for, sometimes we can't live up to our ideals & sometimes people are just flawed individuals.




If you stated what Gore does doesn't change scientific validity of info presented then of course I agree. But does such inconsistency call into question the validity of the persons missive?

No, it doesn't. That's why an appeal to hypocrisy & other ad hominems are considered fallacious arguments.



How much of a mission is Gore environmentalism if he doesn't even practice?

Do you really think there'd be a point where the right wing would be accepting & not calling someone like Al Gore a hypocrite instead of addressing the issues directly? If there's no way to actually respond to criticism in that vein, is the criticism even valid?

moahunter
05-06-2017, 09:27 AM
It has no hard-and-fast emission-reduction targets: Governments set their own targets based on what they think they can get away with with voters or what they think they have to give up to shut up the environmental lobby (which is huge and extremely well-funded) and its media pals.For instance, in Paris, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau committed Canada to reducing its emissions to 30% below 2005 levels by 2030.

There is no way for us to do that without crippling our economy and putting millions out of work. That kind of emissions cut would require the equivalent of parking every car, truck, airplane, bus and train in the country – permanently – or shutting down every factory and non-nuclear power plant.

Not gonna happen. But fear not, the Paris accord gives the UN no power by which to enforce our promised reductions or punish our failure.

So how then can the UN claim adherence to Paris will keep global temperatures from rising more than 1.5°C? The same way Al Capone could claim he made a meagre middle-class income while pocketing millions annually from bootleg liquor: creative accounting.

http://www.torontosun.com/2017/06/03/the-paris-agreement---apretentious-moralistic-socialist-document

Replacement
05-06-2017, 09:39 AM
In fairness is practice what one preaches now dead as a concept?

No, it's still a fine maxim & a good guide to avoiding hypocrisy.



Why not be consistent with ones convictions and utilize accordingly?

Because sometimes compromise is called for, sometimes we can't live up to our ideals & sometimes people are just flawed individuals.




If you stated what Gore does doesn't change scientific validity of info presented then of course I agree. But does such inconsistency call into question the validity of the persons missive?

No, it doesn't. That's why an appeal to hypocrisy & other ad hominems are considered fallacious arguments.



How much of a mission is Gore environmentalism if he doesn't even practice?

Do you really think there'd be a point where the right wing would be accepting & not calling someone like Al Gore a hypocrite instead of addressing the issues directly? If there's no way to actually respond to criticism in that vein, is the criticism even valid?
Your answer to the first point potentially conflicts with your third answer. I'm having trouble parsing both statements. In statement it seems you acknowledge the fine maxim to avoid hypocrisy and at the same time consider the hypocrisy fallacious.

To answer your question my own take is that very limited and defined environmental missives have often been the most successful. Ones that are clearly defined, like limiting CFC's to help save the ozone layer. Make goals too broad and they are more subject to questioning and opting out of.

noodle
05-06-2017, 09:49 AM
Your answer to the first point potentially conflicts with your third answer. I'm having trouble parsing both statements. In statement it seems you acknowledge the fine maxim to avoid hypocrisy and at the same time consider the hypocrisy fallacious.

I said hypocrisy was something to avoid and that the "appeal to hypocrisy (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tu_quoque)" is a fallacious argument. One should generally live in accordance with their beliefs, but an inability to do so does not in & of itself invalidate said beliefs.


To answer your question my own take is that very limited and defined environmental missives have often been the most successful. Ones that are clearly defined, like limiting CFC's to help save the ozone layer. Make goals too broad and they are more subject to questioning and opting out of.

So limiting CFCs to prevent further damage to the ozone layer is fine, but limiting CO2 to prevent further damage to global climate isn't?

Replacement
05-06-2017, 10:05 AM
So limiting CFCs to prevent further damage to the ozone layer is fine, but limiting CO2 to prevent further damage to global climate isn't?

Not at all what I am saying.

I am stating that broader targets are more subject to non participation. Not whether I would participate. I would, and do. But I don't arrive in a stretch limo while being a public speaker on a poverty forum albeit Ralph Klein would. Just to use an example.


I'm reminded of a priest in Jasper Place when I grew up in a working class neighborhood. He drove the worst vehicle anybody had, an old VW bug. Rusted out bucket. People asked him if they could help out and he could get better wheels. He refused and believed that having less, and demonstrating less possessions was consistent with gospel teachings. He was a highly respected man in the community. People grew to love his old bug and that it invoked a consistent message. Sorry in advance if that is entirely disconnected. its just an example of modeled consistency.

AS a kid, and even at the time an agnostic I respected that priest as much for what he drove and how he himself lived than what he had to say.

moahunter
05-06-2017, 10:08 AM
^basically like a smart goal. Have realistic targets. CFC elimination made sense because there were alternatives available, and it only impact a few products, not almost every activity humans do, from smoking a cigarette to lighting a camp fire. They could have some agree smart goals with a view to attaining the reductions. For example, raising insulation standards in certain climates. Reducing the number of autos on the road. phasing out coal burning. etc.

Replacement
05-06-2017, 10:23 AM
^Theres a problem with too broad of goals and also with goals that are causally one step removed. This has been well documented.

For instance when I grew up habitat encroachment, deforestation, example depletion of the amazon was a common focus. Ironically while clearcutting continued unabated here...I remember learning how obscene it was that the Amazon was being cut down for profit and not a peep about deforestation here..

But I digress. Something like habitat encroachment is a clear and inarguable concept. It requires no debate. A parking lot instead of a forest is encroachment. It isn't arguable.

Air pollution, the same. Can be measured, concisely documented, and with clear advisory. Clear and irrefutable connections can be made between local pollutants and local sources.

Global warming however involves mechanisms, tertiary contributions, and is needlessly a more complex environmental message.

The same, and more effective policy could be developed to decrease pollutants, decrease coal, diesel consumption etc and with these being obvious anyway targets that few would dispute. I don't know when and why the Environmental lobby went with the global warming missive. I think pragmatically that was a mistake. Application and efficacy of the lobby would increase around simpler, and more clearly defined targets.

H.L.
05-06-2017, 10:26 AM
http://www.torontosun.com/2017/06/03/the-paris-agreement---apretentious-moralistic-socialist-document

Yup!

KC
05-06-2017, 10:33 AM
It has no hard-and-fast emission-reduction targets: Governments set their own targets based on what they think they can get away with with voters or what they think they have to give up to shut up the environmental lobby (which is huge and extremely well-funded) and its media pals.For instance, in Paris, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau committed Canada to reducing its emissions to 30% below 2005 levels by 2030.

There is no way for us to do that without crippling our economy and putting millions out of work. That kind of emissions cut would require the equivalent of parking every car, truck, airplane, bus and train in the country – permanently – or shutting down every factory and non-nuclear power plant.

Not gonna happen. But fear not, the Paris accord gives the UN no power by which to enforce our promised reductions or punish our failure.

So how then can the UN claim adherence to Paris will keep global temperatures from rising more than 1.5°C? The same way Al Capone could claim he made a meagre middle-class income while pocketing millions annually from bootleg liquor: creative accounting.

http://www.torontosun.com/2017/06/03/the-paris-agreement---apretentious-moralistic-socialist-document

Amazing!

So what was the issue with it, and why on earth would Trump one, want to pull out of it and, two, why on earth would Trump then want to renegotiate it? Especially when the premise at the heart of it all, global Warming, is not even real according to Trump?

noodle
05-06-2017, 10:39 AM
Hahaha. Right-wing rubes linking a Sun right-wing Gunter editorial like it's actual journalism written by someone with ethics & principles, not one step up from ranting propaganda meant to rile up the reactionaries.

Highlander II
05-06-2017, 10:52 AM
In fairness is practice what one preaches now dead as a concept? Why not be consistent with ones convictions and utilize accordingly?

If you stated what Gore does doesn't change scientific validity of info presented then of course I agree. But does such inconsistency call into question the validity of the persons missive? How much of a mission is Gore environmentalism if he doesn't even practice?

His emissions are large, but he's still just one person. He could do everything in his power to reduce his own emissions but the result would be miniscule compared to the combined benefit of governments taking reductions seriously. Despite his personal emissions he's still doing good, assuming that his advocacy work has made a difference in bringing the issue to the forefront on the population level.

moahunter
05-06-2017, 10:56 AM
His emissions are large, but he's still just one person. He could do everything in his power to reduce his own emissions but the result would be miniscule compared to the combined benefit of governments taking reductions seriously.
You mean, a bit like how the oil sands emissions are totally miniscule with no real impact on a world scale? Funny how that applies to oil sands, but not to Al Gore - if you took all the 1 percenters (who control most of the worlds wealth) like him and Obama who preach about global warming, and had them live in normal houses instead of massive mansions, and not use luxury yachts and private jets, it would probably have a bigger impact on global emissions than Alberta does.

Highlander II
05-06-2017, 11:05 AM
That cartoon perfectly exemplifies the worst attitude we commonly see from the left -

"Everybody needs to change what they are doing for the better good." but "Me? No, someone else needs to do it. Someone else needs to pay for it. I won't be that example of how to do it. Someone else needs to. Not me, but someone."

There are plenty of those examples, but they don't get press. There are people living off the grid to reduce their impact, people who live smaller, drive less or don't drive at all to cut their personal emissions, but they're busy growing kale so they don't have time for all the conferences.

All those personal efforts add up to peanuts, though, if there's not a societal effort supporting it. Humans are selfish and lazy, you'll never have more than a few percent willing to make big changes, especially when they see others taking the easy route.

MrOilers
05-06-2017, 11:16 AM
Humans are selfish and lazy

I don't think humans are lazy. People are willing to do all kinds of hard work and make sacrifices, but the payoff needs to be worth it to them. I don't think that's really "selfish", either.

Highlander II
05-06-2017, 11:20 AM
^^^Kinda, only several orders of magnitude smaller. He could cut is all and make no detectable difference. Oilsands cumulative output, if you're including the carbon shipped out and burned elsewhere, is a big number but still a percent or two of the world - close the oilsands and the issue isn't close to solved.

But here's the thing - it won't be solved, ever, if we just expect people to act against their own interest by being the one to cut. I can go off-grid and lose all the conveniences of fossil fuel energy but I get zero benefit from my sacrifice beside earning a little smugness.

Same applies to you, Al Gore, David Suzuki and CNRL.

Nobody benefits until a strong majority participates. How does that happen? By getting people to care enough to want somebody to do something, and then with that support governments change the playing field so that everybody does participate.

Your solution for the 1%ers sounds kinda Commie.

Highlander II
05-06-2017, 11:46 AM
So in summary:
Individuals won't fix the problem because their marginal cost to cut emissions is larger than the personal marginal gain from their own cut.

Government programs like Alberta's carbon tax shift the curve, so that people make different choices. But Alberta's still fairly small, and carbon tax high enough to make a real difference (say $150+/ton) will cost our quality of life if we're the only ones doing it. So it won't get that high unless we see others making similar efforts.

So we need international effort, preferably Global.
Oh, but that's apparently bad.

MrOilers
10-07-2017, 04:12 PM
Turkey admits that without USA's money they are less inclined to ratify their end of the Paris Accord:

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-g20-climatechange-turkey-idUSKBN19T11R?utm_campaign=trueAnthem:+Trending+Co ntent&utm_content=5961652104d301110c14ff47&utm_medium=trueAnthem&utm_source=twitter


This supports my point that this agreement was primarily a big global wealth redistribution scheme.

H.L.
10-07-2017, 04:43 PM
Turkey admits that without USA's money they are less inclined to ratify their end of the Paris Accord:

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-g20-climatechange-turkey-idUSKBN19T11R?utm_campaign=trueAnthem:+Trending+Co ntent&utm_content=5961652104d301110c14ff47&utm_medium=trueAnthem&utm_source=twitter


This supports my point that this agreement was primarily a big global wealth redistribution scheme.

Of course it is, it solves nothing! give us your money..give give give..

Dave
10-07-2017, 04:48 PM
Turkey admits that without USA's money they are less inclined to ratify their end of the Paris Accord:

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-g20-climatechange-turkey-idUSKBN19T11R?utm_campaign=trueAnthem:+Trending+Co ntent&utm_content=5961652104d301110c14ff47&utm_medium=trueAnthem&utm_source=twitter


This supports my point that this agreement was primarily a big global wealth redistribution scheme.

Of course it is, it solves nothing! give us your money..give give give..

You just know that in 10 or so years Trump will be at the front of the line asking for government money when Mar a Lago starts to flood. Climate change causes sea level rise - who knew?

kkozoriz
10-07-2017, 05:43 PM
He already is in Ireland



Trump acknowledges climate change — at his golf course
The billionaire, who called global warming a hoax, warns of its dire effects in his company's application to build a sea wall.
By BEN SCHRECKINGER 05/23/2016 05:35 AM EDT


Earlier this month, after failing to win special approval from the national government for the structure, Trump re-submitted a planning application with the Clare County Council seeking permission to build the wall, which would consist of 200,000 tons of rock distributed along two miles of beach. As part of the application, Trump International Golf Links submitted an environmental impact statement — prepared by an Irish environmental consultancy — which argues that erosion is likely to accelerate as sea levels rise more quickly.

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/05/donald-trump-climate-change-golf-course-223436

Dave
10-07-2017, 05:59 PM
He already is in Ireland

[QUOTE]
Trump acknowledges climate change — at his golf course
The billionaire, who called global warming a hoax, warns of its dire effects in his company's application to build a sea wall.
By BEN SCHRECKINGER 05/23/2016 05:35 AM EDT


Earlier this month, after failing to win special approval from the national government for the structure, Trump re-submitted a planning application with the Clare County Council seeking permission to build the wall, which would consist of 200,000 tons of rock distributed along two miles of beach. As part of the application, Trump International Golf Links submitted an environmental impact statement — prepared by an Irish environmental consultancy — which argues that erosion is likely to accelerate as sea levels rise more quickly.

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/05/donald-trump-climate-change-golf-course-223436
[/QUOTE

... but it will be a "beautiful" wall, a great wall, a tremendous wall, that will also keep Mexicans out too.