Corporate America is ignoring Biff. Probably gonna be a trend.
http://fortune.com/2017/06/02/paris-climate-withdrawal-trump-business/
http://fortune.com/2017/06/02/paris-climate-withdrawal-trump-business/
Why Business Opposes Trump’s Retreat From Paris Climate Pact
- Thread starter bamaEER
- Start date
How about all of the major cities and maybe even states that will ignore the idiot in chief's latest edict? He's trying to distill his followers down to the truest fools. He'll be losing younger voters over this if he had any to begin with.
Individual incentive or actions by State or local government is to be applauded and recognized as THE WAY it should be done and NOT as a dictate by foreign powers or agencies like the UN. This TREATY enslaved OUR government. Our sovereignty was being given away. Trump was willing to take the steps necessary to protect the USA and its citizens. All should be thankful.
First, it wasn't a treaty. It was an agreement.
Second, every nation on earth entered into the agreement with the exception of Syria and Nicaragua.
Third, there were no mandates. It was an agreement by all nations to reduce their carbon footprint.
Fourth, it doesn't enslave anyone; you have businesses and corporations saying it was a terrible move. They called and lobbied against it.
Fifth, you are so ill informed. I truly feel sorry for you. It's pitiful that people are this ignorant.
And still yet leftist globalists miss the point. Again.
This is great, they can do what they want.
I love it when cities, counties etc. live up to what they believe in by passing laws to that effect. Then the voters will have the opportunity to weigh in.
The Paris Accord did not give the voters that chance. It was not a TREATY. It was not submitted to the SENATE. WHY? Shouldn't the people have a voice? After all, their lives, jobs, quality of life are all being directly affected.
Exactly. If GE wants to live up to the accords, then Immelt can develop corporate strategies to do so. He can change all the lighting at GE facilities around the world. He can stop any fossil fuel equipment development. He can focus on green energy as GE's corporate strategy. Then the Board can make a judgement if they agree. The stockholders can make that same judgement.
GE does not need Paris to live up to what Obama committed to doing. The Paris Accords were strictly voluntary anyway.
THAT'S the point! We already know how to clean up our messes and we do.
Why do we need Bangladesh dictating to us how much Co2 to produce, while we fund their ability to try and learn how to pump water from their streams without animal poop flowing in it?
And the progress we have made since 2005 is incredible. Fracking has been a huge benefit. Innovation, technology and the American capitalistic system will do far more for cleaning the air and water than the Paris Accord.
It was non-binding and had no penalties...not every nation was held to the same standard...so why even have it?
Wrong. A lot of major US corporations are against pulling out. There was nothing to lose staying in and everything to lose staying out.
I think you're supposed to put your signature below the text you write, not on the same line.
Don't test me. Link
"Also decides that, in accordance with Article 9, paragraph 3, of the Agreement, developed countries intend to continue their existing collective mobilization goal through 2025 in the context of meaningful mitigation actions and transparency on implementation; prior to 2025 the Conference of the Parties serving as the meeting of the Parties to the Paris Agreement shall set a new collective quantified goal from a floor of USD 100 billion per year, taking into account the needs and priorities of developing countries;"
"Resolves to enhance the provision of urgent and adequate finance, technology and capacity-building support by developed country Parties in order to enhance the level of ambition of pre-2020 action by Parties, and in this regard strongly urges developed country Parties to scale up their level of financial support, with a concrete roadmap to achieve the FCCC/CP/2015/L.9/Rev.1 17 goal of jointly providing USD 100 billion annually by 2020 for mitigation and adaptation while significantly increasing adaptation finance from current levels and to further provide appropriate technology and capacity-building support;"
We've sent $1B with a total commitment of $3B by 2020.
Why Trump is seeing red about the ‘Green Climate Fund’
http://www.cnbc.com/2017/06/02/why-trump-is-seeing-red-about-the-green-climate-fund.html
CNBC plays naive, or is naive, as well. Who always pays when it's "developed countries"? Or a synonym... NATO? They would've come asking for the $100 billion, and... Germany is going to pay for it? Right.
so We'll keep our $2 billion Obama "committed" to, and not be on the hook for the majority of $100 billion a year Obama "pledged".
You don't read very much and you certainly don't know much about the Paris Accord. The Guardian, by the way, is a left wing newspaper.
Money will be a big challenge for India, which says it will require over $2.5tn (£1.9tn) to meet all its targets. It says it will achieve the targets only if other countries give it money and discounts on new technology.
https://www.theguardian.com/environ...ris-climate-change-agreement-un-narendra-modi
The other number Trump mentioned was goal of eventually mobilizing $100 billion per year to help poorer countries combat climate change, which was first announced in 2009 at the Copenhagen climate conference.
J. Timmons Roberts, a researcher at the Brookings Institution who tracks climate spending, described the commitment as more complex and often indirect than aid through programs like the Green Climate Fund.
In addition to being spread out around the developed world, the $100 billion goal is much more vague. The number includes not only foreign aid, but private sector investments as well, and there's a lot of wiggle room over what counts towards the total.
An Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development analysis in 2016, for example, predicted pledges worldwide would add up to $67 billion per year by 2020 — a major step towards the target. But countries like India have complained similar estimates have been massively inflated by items like private loans to buy green technology from developed nations that are closer to ordinary business transactions than foreign aid.
Roberts said there's some merit to their complaints: He examined $10 billion of pledged 2012 aid with the think tank consortium Adaptation Watch, for example, and concluded only about $2.3 billion could be clearly verified as such.
In a possible gesture to these funding issues, Trump indicated that the $100 billion goal could increase significantly.
No matter how it's calculated, though, the Paris Agreement is not a binding treaty and the United States is not legally obligated to provide any specific amount. That means Trump would have been free to remain in the agreement without spending another dollar as president.
So this effectively means we are OUT OF THE AGREEMENT. We are not meeting our obligations. Therefore, by officially pulling out, it means nothing. Why then the hysteria on the left if Trump could simply have opted not to meet our obligations? That would not make us a reliably ally, right? At least we are being up front about our intentions and will not surprise anyone.
lol smh That's some number that India pulled out of the air that they will need to spend to achieve certain goals and they'd like some financial help with it. People in hell want ice water too. How stupid can you be to be?
Rolling out your alternative facts I see, well done. I'll go with the article I linked and not your BS.
How naive and stupid you are. India says they will need $2.5T in new technology and financial assistance. Where is that going to come from? They rightfully claim that the U.S. got rich on cheap abundant fossil fuels and now we want them to use far more expensive energy. They want compensated. It is natural.
The truly sad part is that you did not know this. So uninformed.
I guess you think that USD 100 billion means the U.S. pays $100B. The excerpt from the agreement you posted describes a goal of raising 100 billion U.S. dollars (how it will be measured) and see "jointly providing" which means accumulative (from all involved).