Trump Expected to Pull Out of Paris Climate Agreement

no one has done more to diminish economic growth and the quality of life for the poor than climate nutjobs raising energy prices

 

Lol.... you can be dishonest and make it not look so bigly.....

 

The irony is shale caused a global supply glut in 2014 and the Permian Basin in Texas is the hottest play in North American because of shale. Was it MAGA when this was happening under Obama?

You don't even know what you are cheering for honestly.

 

it happened in spite of Obama

he'd have banned fracking if he could find a way

 

You have no idea what you are talking about... we had an oil and gas boom from production to refining in the last 5 year while greatly increasing renewable energy.

 

You mean in spite of the worst environmental disaster in US caused by a group of oil companies? Remember Deepwater Horizon?

Obama wouldn't have banned fracking, you just have to be dishonest in order to validate your beliefs.

 

I just explained to you that their numbers are well in line with others who ran the numbers on the cost of the Paris climate agreement.....so unless you can show how you think they are wrong, don't just roll with ad hominem BS and expect people to let you get away with it.

Notice how my next post was "Of course, we don't have to accept that study as fact, according to a Columbia University economics professor the deal would cost between $1.28 trillion and $5.28 trillion. Of course, no matter how you slice it up, the Paris climate agreement was going to cost the US trillions and have incredibly little to no actual benefits."

That post was made before your ad hominem about the Heritage study, but you ignored it because you had no way of easily attacking the credibility of those who did the study and you sure as hell didn't want to address the content of the studies because you know you've got nothing there.

Basically you don't like what they are saying, but you probably know deep down that what they are saying is accurate or potentially accurate so you attack them in order to get around actually discussing the content of what they are saying because that's a conversation you can't win and you know it.

 

I do think it's funny that most people who are against "fracking" are against it based on it's name alone. They just assume something called "fracking" has to be bad.

 

US didn't agree to the Kyoto protocol, yet was the first country to meet the targets.

Still, nobody has answered my question on p1 about what this will do to renewable energy investment in the US.

 

Interesting that so many company's have called for the U.S. to stay in the Paris Accord:

Well, not all industries/companies...

https://www.bloomberg.com/politics/...ull-court-press-on-paris-as-trump-weighs-exit

 

I think it's because of the actual consequences of fracking, it can serious damage to water reservoirs if done poorly or cheaply.

 

I'd imagine we lose ground on technology. China has repeatedly shown it doesn't mind spending public money to gain a competitive edge.

It's funny because if Trump and co had any sort of vision, they could have tied natural gas to climate change.

 

Danish statistician Dr. Bjorn Lomborg, the President of the Copenhagen Consensus Center: 'We will spend at least one hundred trillion dollars in order to reduce the temperature by the end of the century by a grand total of three tenths of one degree...the equivalent of postponing warming by less than four years...Again, that is using the UN's own climate prediction model.'
'If the U.S. delivers for the whole century on the President Obama's very ambitious rhetoric, it would postpone global warming by about eight months at the end of the century.'
'But here is the biggest problem: These miniscule benefits do not come free -- quite the contrary. The cost of the UN Paris climate pact is likely to run 1 to 2 trillion dollars every year.'

 

What an f'n a-hole

 

The dumb asses at MIT seem to have an opinion.

http://news.mit.edu/2016/how-much-difference-will-paris-agreement-make-0422

 

Best take in the thread supporting the decision. Interesting perspective. I don't have a ton of faith in congress enacting legislation that is in the best interest of the country. But I can get on board with this principle.

I guess the argument would be that we aren't allowed to dispose of our trash in Canada and emissions do not stay within international borders (for example).

 

By that same logic, no one has done more to stop bank robbers from their right to jobs as bank robbers than the police. Screw the public threat and the annoyance of criminal activity, the police are standing in the way of America jobs over here! It's my right as an American to take what I want, regulations and laws be damned!