Welcome to the Hardcore Husky Forums. Folks who are well-known in Cyberland and not that dumb.
Real Q
WilburHooksHands
Member Posts: 6,804
in Tug Tavern
I don't know much about the Paris agreement. Can anyone explain to me why this is detrimental to US economic interests OTHER than the slush fund? Why would it costs jobs, as some are saying?
Comments
-
It's a voluntary agreement where each country defines how it can do its part to affect climate change.
There was no downside to being in the agreement, but Trump gonna Trump. -
https://www.cato.org/blog/statement-us-withdraw-paris-climate-treaty
The Paris climate treaty is climatically insignificant. EPA’s own models show it would only lower global warming by an inconsequential two-tenths of a degree Celsius by 2100. The cost to the U.S. – in the form of required payments of $100 billion per year to the developing world – is too great for the inconsequential results. These very real expenses will consume money that could be used by the private sector to fund innovative new technologies that are economically sound and can power our society with little pollution.
Because of our private investments in technological innovation, America leads the world in reducing carbon dioxide emissions from power plants. We did that without Paris, and we will continue our exemplary leadership without it. -
The US isn't required to pay $100 billion per year.
The CATO Institute should be better than that. -
Not anymore.TierbsHsotBoobs said:The US isn't required to pay $100 billion per year.
The CATO Institute should be better than that. -
What do Donald Trump, Daniel Ortega, and Bashar Al-Assad have in common?
The only three global leaders who are not signatories to the Paris Agreement.
Even Kim Jong Un is. -
We never were. We've paid $1 billion of a $3 billion pledge.GrundleStiltzkin said:
Not anymore.TierbsHsotBoobs said:The US isn't required to pay $100 billion per year.
The CATO Institute should be better than that.
Feel free to find a legitimate news source that says otherwise.
-
If we're bashing Bashar Al-Assad then I'm out.
-
We shouldn't be surrendering our sovereignty.
Pulling out of the Paris surrender agreement helps Donald Trump win reelection in the United States. -
It basically comes down to this: undoing everything Obama did during his tenure is bound to be good for the US.
-
Sounds like he withdrew from a meaningless paper policy. If Kim jong Un is a part of it then what good is it really?
And LOL about China seizing the opportunity to become a world leader on climate change.
Non-issue either way. It won't be interesting.
