>U.S. President Donald Trump has informed multiple individuals, including EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt, that he intends to remove the United States from the Paris Climate Agreement, according several sources.
Redpill me on the Paris Climate Agreement. Is this a good choice on Trump's part? A bad one? Is it just another scam? Give me your reasons.
And please, if you're another Trump shill that thinks he can do no wrong, refrain from commenting. I'm looking to gain understanding and start a constructive dialogue, not an echo chamber. We have Trump generals for that.
It's just another way to hand over power to a foreign entity and increase global authority to our "betters". It's always like this. Power grabs are almost exclusively about the common good.
Aiden Stewart
The turd world doesn't follow climate agreements so we lose our edge in manufacturing
Charles Thompson
it seems he wants the ball in his court. the west is the only place that will even acknowledged the climate. the US is a key contributor to anything the west shits out policy wise. This paris climate agreement is dominated by Europeans, which as far as trump is concerned dont give a rats ass (and they really dont) about how these new policies will affect the US. thats what it looks like to me
Wyatt Kelly
>multiple sources any actual names?
Noah Flores
Climate change is caused by the pole shift
It'll stabilize in about 50 years
Camden Harris
The major problem is that it disproportionately harms the US while countries like China and India are allowed to continue to shit up the whole planet unchecked
Kevin Walker
America has allowed The EU to pretend like they are relevant for a long time and they are beginning to abuse this dynamic with Merkel etc. EU bureaucrats want to make the "big decisions" about people's lives, without any of the political legitimacy to do so. Trump withdrawing from these institutions is just a corrective measure about who really has the power.
Zachary Gray
The entire agreement was worthless because it was full of "Should" rather than "Will"
It was nothing but feel good bullshit they all patted themselves on the back over. It was nonbinding and countries like China agreed to it, but would just ignore it, and still fulfill it's end of the bargain, and with it in place could cite it as them "Attempting" to fix their pollution problem and thus weasel out of any further ones.
By leaving it, and hopefully dissolving it, one with a backbone can be drafted to actually put the clamp on China and help promote better techniques, tech, and methods to help cut down on pollution and destruction of our natural heritage.
Global warming a spook, pollution's the real demon, if we focus on pollution, it'll help the environment recover and the environment can heal it's self of further.
Wyatt Adams
Heal it's self of further bullshit, I mean. It can deal with a lot more than we can, it just has to be fighting fit to do so.
Elijah Gray
i that before or after he gets impeached?
Cooper Adams
I doubt that's ever going to happen. Seeing as how so much of his policy reflects the same ol' same ol' he seems to be pretty controlled and thus probably protected like the Clintons.
Brayden Butler
LOOKS LIKE YOUR CLIMATE HOAX CAN GO FUCK ITS
Nicholas Price
>Is it just another scam yes, it's about (((carbon taxes))) and globalization, e.g. countries like china and india are allowed to continue to do whatever.
the earth has cycles. cycles that are predicated on many factors.
this has been going on for billions of years.
e.g. this graph shows that in the past 400,000 years alone their have been FIVE previous spikes in temp and CO2.... exactly as we are seeing now.... exactly as expected now.
yes man creates CO2... but it's like pissing into an ocean of piss. it accounts for less than 4% of what the earth is releasing on it's own annually.
This is GREAT! Climate change is another word for Global wealth redistribution.
Jack Garcia
>Climate Fags BTFO
I don't know if I can take much more liberal salt, my heart is gonna give out.
Camden Brooks
>is another word for Global wealth redistribution 100%
Eli Ortiz
Very well said. I couldn't agree more.
Adrian Garcia
Thx can I use that jpeg?
Grayson Diaz
Good. I have absolutely no respect for international "law".
Brody Jenkins
Mr. Anonymous Source, Sr.
Lincoln Reed
>Acknowledging that climate change is a common concern of humankind, Parties should, when taking action to address climate change, respect, promote and consider their respective obligations on human rights, the right to health, the rights of indigenous peoples, local communities, migrants, children, persons with disabilities and people in vulnerable situations and the right to development, as well as gender equality, empowerment of women and intergenerational equity,
Tell me that doesn't sound like commie bullshit
Adam Jackson
As long as the EU cry tears of butthurt I'm all for it
Kevin Barnes
masturbating to this news
Oliver Lee
My take as a Trump supporting libertarian capitalist is that these sorts of agreements try to answer a legitimate problem that arises naturally in laisse faire systems where each party benefits by exploiting a commonly shared finite pool of resources to the point that said resources deplete. The example i heard in mba econ class was say you have 20 farmers sharing a pasture. for each farmer, it's better to put one more cow on the shared pasture, then another, ... The net result is the pasture gets picked bare, and everybody converts to islam and dies. Whereas it would have been better for all to self-regulate in such a way to keep the total number in check.
Whether climate change can be definitely proved or not is moot. Rather, imho, if there is a chance of impact, some limited response is warranted.
All this said, the differences between the example above and reality are many. One, tech breakthroughs are hard to predict, and generally accelerate at a compound rate. Both solar and maybe hopefully fusion could dramatically shift carbon outlays in a short period of time. Also, we may still get fucked by volcanic activity, which still accounts for a significant amount of carbon. I forget the amount, but if i recall it was more than that produced by humans by a substantial margin.
We probably shouldn't drop out of it. But we probably won't die if we do.
Juan Jackson
Good.
Jonathan Flores
>We probably shouldn't drop out of it.
Colton Garcia
After the grand solar minimum?
Oliver Powell
THIS IS THE TRUTH
Luke Martinez
I already explained to you what caused these spikes yesterday and they are completely inconsistent (both in timing and mechanism) with the current warming
