PeteMoss Posted June 3, 2017 Report Share Posted June 3, 2017 Leonardo DeCaprio's chartered yacht: Doing everything he can to fight global warming. To be fair, there is a solar panel on there for one of the beverage coolers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kimber Posted June 3, 2017 Report Share Posted June 3, 2017 I guess if there ever was a doubt what a buffoon trump is, there isn't anymore. Sad! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reddi Killowatt Posted June 3, 2017 Report Share Posted June 3, 2017 One decision Trump actually gets to make without someone smarter able to fix his wrong decision. Trump is really soaking in all this attention? What a bafoon this man is. Destroying the future for a dollar today? Hope we can buy air and water with the money we might gain from pulling out of this agreement, or fly to another planet. The Paris Accord is something that NO country should buy into. It's basically worthless. I'm not sure if you looked into it, but to me it's a very shady deal. There's no oversight, there's no enforcement, and basically if we pay into this thing, we are just dumping money into something that, doesn't make sense. Read this: "The level of NDCs set by each country[7] will set that country's targets. However the 'contributions' themselves are not binding as a matter of international law, as they lack the specificity, normative character, or obligatory language necessary to create binding norms.[14]Furthermore, there will be no mechanism to force[6] a country to set a target in their NDC by a specific date and no enforcement if a set target in an NDC is not met.[7][15] There will be only a "name and shame" system[16] or as János Pásztor, the U.N. assistant secretary-general on climate change, told CBS News (US), a "name and encourage" plan.[17] As the agreement provides no consequences if countries do not meet their commitments, consensus of this kind is fragile. A trickle of nations exiting the agreement may trigger the withdrawal of more governments, bringing about a total collapse of the agreement.[18]" Let me break this down. "The level of NDCs set by each country[7] will set that country's targets. However the 'contributions' themselves are not binding as a matter of international law, as they lack the specificity, normative character, or obligatory language necessary to create binding norms." So, say China said they would cut emissions by 50% by such a time. They promise it, but yet, there's nothing to bind them to that. "Furthermore, there will be no mechanism to force" Ok, so China say's they will cut emissions by 50% by such a time. They promised it, but yet with this agreement, they aren't under force to do this. "a country to set a target in their NDC by a specific date and no enforcement if a set target in an NDC is not met" Ok, so China never met there 50%. They're not forced to. There will be only a "name and shame" system[16] or as János Pásztor, the U.N. assistant secretary-general on climate change, told CBS News (US), a "name and encourage" plan Shame on China! Let's put your name on a wall of shame! BAD CHINA! As the agreement provides no consequences if countries do not meet their commitments It's okay China, you spend a bunch of money into this Paris Accord, and we love your money, but you didn't meet your 50%, and that's okay. Work harder next time and funnel more money into this, which won't help you at all. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- (I only just used China as an example) Seriously, there is no reason to funnel money into something that 1. isn't enforced, and 2. there's no oversight. I agree with Trump pulling out of this. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris_Agreement (Source) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ndirish Posted June 4, 2017 Report Share Posted June 4, 2017 The Paris Accord is something that NO country should buy into. It's basically worthless. I'm not sure if you looked into it, but to me it's a very shady deal. There's no oversight, there's no enforcement, and basically if we pay into this thing, we are just dumping money into something that, doesn't make sense. Read this: "The level of NDCs set by each country[7] will set that country's targets. However the 'contributions' themselves are not binding as a matter of international law, as they lack the specificity, normative character, or obligatory language necessary to create binding norms.[14]Furthermore, there will be no mechanism to force[6] a country to set a target in their NDC by a specific date and no enforcement if a set target in an NDC is not met.[7][15] There will be only a "name and shame" system[16] or as János Pásztor, the U.N. assistant secretary-general on climate change, told CBS News (US), a "name and encourage" plan.[17] As the agreement provides no consequences if countries do not meet their commitments, consensus of this kind is fragile. A trickle of nations exiting the agreement may trigger the withdrawal of more governments, bringing about a total collapse of the agreement.[18]" Let me break this down. "The level of NDCs set by each country[7] will set that country's targets. However the 'contributions' themselves are not binding as a matter of international law, as they lack the specificity, normative character, or obligatory language necessary to create binding norms." So, say China said they would cut emissions by 50% by such a time. They promise it, but yet, there's nothing to bind them to that. "Furthermore, there will be no mechanism to force" Ok, so China say's they will cut emissions by 50% by such a time. They promised it, but yet with this agreement, they aren't under force to do this. "a country to set a target in their NDC by a specific date and no enforcement if a set target in an NDC is not met" Ok, so China never met there 50%. They're not forced to. There will be only a "name and shame" system[16] or as János Pásztor, the U.N. assistant secretary-general on climate change, told CBS News (US), a "name and encourage" plan Shame on China! Let's put your name on a wall of shame! BAD CHINA! As the agreement provides no consequences if countries do not meet their commitments It's okay China, you spend a bunch of money into this Paris Accord, and we love your money, but you didn't meet your 50%, and that's okay. Work harder next time and funnel more money into this, which won't help you at all. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- (I only just used China as an example) Seriously, there is no reason to funnel money into something that 1. isn't enforced, and 2. there's no oversight. I agree with Trump pulling out of this. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris_Agreement (Source) All good examples, except I believe China is not paying into Paris. (Nor is Russia, India, etc) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PeteMoss Posted June 4, 2017 Report Share Posted June 4, 2017 All good examples, except I believe China is not paying into Paris. (Nor is Russia, India, etc) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reddi Killowatt Posted June 4, 2017 Report Share Posted June 4, 2017 All good examples, except I believe China is not paying into Paris. (Nor is Russia, India, etc) I just used China as an example for my thinking on this. Good that China isn't paying into it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PeteMoss Posted June 4, 2017 Report Share Posted June 4, 2017 I just used China as an example for my thinking on this. Good that China isn't paying into it. China, Russia and India are not stupid. Just obama is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sportsexpert Posted June 4, 2017 Author Report Share Posted June 4, 2017 The Paris Agreement has a goal in mind, which is help save the Earth/environment. The U.S. was leading by example in an effort to encourage others to follow suit. If other countries are not following, then I would agree there needs to be sanctions against the offending countries. However, the concept of the Paris Agreement really can't be disputed, and I hope Trump will really try to at least create a better agreement. Not very optimist though since who would want to make any agreement with this bafoon? Trump has lost all ability to accomplish anything. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JB 2 Posted June 4, 2017 Report Share Posted June 4, 2017 The Paris Agreement has a goal in mind, which is help save the Earth/environment. The U.S. was leading by example in an effort to encourage others to follow suit. If other countries are not following, then I would agree there needs to be sanctions against the offending countries. However, the concept of the Paris Agreement really can't be disputed, and I hope Trump will really try to at least create a better agreement. Not very optimist though since who would want to make any agreement with this bafoon? Trump has lost all ability to accomplish anything. Save the Earth/environment from what? Human exhaling? Sorry, that is a life-long pleasure not easily given up. Cows farting? Again, sorry, but it is too expensive to feed them a beano diet and too many enjoy burgers & steaks. Does the accord allowing other countries to contimue their high rate of polluting the environment while still restrictimg the US from building more powerplants and refineries? At least the Lefts abortion policy is helping with the exhaling "problem". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sportsexpert Posted June 4, 2017 Author Report Share Posted June 4, 2017 Save the Earth/environment from what? Human exhaling? Sorry, that is a life-long pleasure not easily given up. Cows farting? Again, sorry, but it is too expensive to feed them a beano diet and too many enjoy burgers & steaks. Does the accord allowing other countries to contimue their high rate of polluting the environment while still restrictimg the US from building more powerplants and refineries? At least the Lefts abortion policy is helping with the exhaling "problem". You make no sense. Please have someone read your posts before you post anymore. While reading your posts, I am reminded of the quote, "Never argue with an idiot, they will drag you down to their level and beat you with experience." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JB 2 Posted June 4, 2017 Report Share Posted June 4, 2017 You make no sense. Please have someone read your posts before you post anymore. While reading your posts, I am reminded of the quote, "Never argue with an idiot, they will drag you down to their level and beat you with experience." DITTO !!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ginger Posted June 4, 2017 Report Share Posted June 4, 2017 It just came across the tv that Al Gore said "Every day is like a nature hike through the book of Revelation." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PeteMoss Posted June 4, 2017 Report Share Posted June 4, 2017 DITTO !!! I understood what you wrote. SportSexPert needs short sentences. Yankees 3 Boston 2. He can understand that. But a sentence with a noun and a verb, wow! Look out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PeteMoss Posted June 4, 2017 Report Share Posted June 4, 2017 It just came across the tv that Al Gore said "Every day is like a nature hike through the book of Revelation." Gore first said that in Jan of 2013. He has no new material, he just recycles his old stuff. http://www.today.com/news/gore-current-weather-nature-hike-through-book-revelation-1C8154384 "“These storms – it’s like a nature hike through the Book of Revelation on the news every day now,” he told TODAY’s Matt Lauer." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sportsexpert Posted June 4, 2017 Author Report Share Posted June 4, 2017 I understood what you wrote. SportSexPert needs short sentences. Yankees 3 Boston 2. He can understand that. But a sentence with a noun and a verb, wow! Look out. You are such a coward Pete. You ignore my posts and then you take shots at me. Why don't you be a man and grow a sack? As much as I disagree with JB's posts, at least he is man enough to carry on a somewhat civil debate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reddi Killowatt Posted June 5, 2017 Report Share Posted June 5, 2017 China, Russia and India are not stupid. Just obama is. I know that! Just in my rant, I just used China as an example. I just needed a country for an example, and I picked China. That's the only reason why China was in my comment. Obama is a fucking dumbass. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flash211 Posted June 5, 2017 Report Share Posted June 5, 2017 The Paris Agreement has a goal in mind, which is help save the Earth/environment. The U.S. was leading by example in an effort to encourage others to follow suit. If other countries are not following, then I would agree there needs to be sanctions against the offending countries. However, the concept of the Paris Agreement really can't be disputed, and I hope Trump will really try to at least create a better agreement. Not very optimist though since who would want to make any agreement with this bafoon? Trump has lost all ability to accomplish anything. If it is just a "goal", then why would we need to pay into this "treaty" to achieve a "goal", when we can do it to ourselves and not have to shuttle billions of $ elsewhere? I also find your comment about sanctions to be not serious. Look how hard it is to apply sanctions on those countries that are hell bent on developing a nuclear weapons program. Given the seriousness of nuclear weapons falling into the wrong hands, how well have those sanctions worked? As for the concept of the Paris "Accord", not so sure it legally could be considered a "treaty". I suppose, if you first believe in this "climate science" "protocol" and second, if you believe that $100+ trillion is a good investment for the very little impact (less than 1 degree Celsius), then I guess your position in support of this "concept" is sound. For me, as one of those deplorable naysayers, I cannot support it. Our weather is always changing, and will until the end of time; whether that us in the 21st century or some later period. Clearly, for all of those individuals that really want to take steps to reduce GHG emissions and truly believe that the Paris Accord was the answer to save the earth, please feel free to send the money you would have spent in addition taxes to me. I will make sure that I reduce my beef intake, stop using drive-thrus to get my drinks, coffees, and reduce my air conditioning energy use during those humid/hot days. So, not to change the topic, we all probably understand that there is a carbon footprint for every item. For those renewable projects using wind or PV (solar), it would be interesting to know the "cradle to grave" overall carbon contribution/reduction for each technology. Assume each technology has a 15 year life cycle and a capacity factor of 20%. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sportsexpert Posted June 6, 2017 Author Report Share Posted June 6, 2017 Flash211, all great points. One question. Can we afford to take the chance that climate change is a hoax? For what I have read a 2 degree Celsius change in average temperature will have a catastrophic affect. The U.S. contribution to the accord is proportional to our county's size, historical pollution output and GDP. Ex: $10 to me is like $100,000 to Trump? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PeteMoss Posted June 6, 2017 Report Share Posted June 6, 2017 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Property & Casualty Posted June 6, 2017 Report Share Posted June 6, 2017 Just curious, have any of the all knowing celebrities abandoned their beach front homes yet, in anticipation of the rising seas? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JB 2 Posted June 6, 2017 Report Share Posted June 6, 2017 Flash211, all great points. One question. Can we afford to take the chance that climate change is a hoax? For what I have read a 2 degree Celsius change in average temperature will have a catastrophic affect. The U.S. contribution to the accord is proportional to our county's size, historical pollution output and GDP. Ex: $10 to me is like $100,000 to Trump? Can we afford to not have a travel ban? The potential danger of not having one is more immediate, and has far better "scientific" evidence of terrorism being real. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JB 2 Posted June 6, 2017 Report Share Posted June 6, 2017 Just curious, have any of the all knowing celebrities abandoned their beach front homes yet, in anticipation of the rising seas? Buy stock in pontoons. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.