What Should a New Climate Agreement Look Like?

I know there are already multiple threads on the Paris withdrawal, but this thread has a more specific purpose.

Instead of the endless debate of "SAVE THE EARTH!" and "CLIMATE CHANGE IS FAKE NEWS!", what would a proper agreement look like? Lets have an actual discussion on how to address the issue of the planet warming in general. What would a proper agreement look like with the sole objective of slowing down the human impact on the destruction of the environment, even if it is not the sole reason for the rising global temperatures? During the announcement, Trump stated that the US will continue to have sound environmental policies; if so, is there really an issue with withdrawing?

Feel free to also address the existence of restricted technologies that would provide clean, endless energy to Humanity. If these technologies are released, wouldn't that solve the issue immediately? Of course, there would be a vast economical impact, but I would like to reinforce that this thread is to discuss an agreement designed to reduce human impact on the environment. Yes, nothing exists in a bubble, but if the rising temperatures were truly a world-ending issue, then certainly people would come together to save the planet they live on instead of squabbling over economic impacts based on greed.

Any ideas? Let's direct our autism towards solving the issue of the rising temperatures on the Earth and the effects it has on Humanity.

Should have never left the paris accords, this was Trumps one big fuckup that will haunt our species for a millennia.

Perhaps you didn't read my original post; how would you create a new agreement? What provisions would you include?

Let's pretend that Paris didn't exist in the first place. If we were to make one now, what would it look like?

I would make it look exactly like the paris accords, it was universally praised amongst the scientific community as being effective. Huge disappointment.

-Move away from fossil fuels ASAP
-Encourage clean energy to hurry the process
-Don't tax/penalize carbon fuel emmissions
- Don't spend a penny on reparations, let nature find its balance
-Start cleaning our mess, I suppose...

The Paris Accords included economic provisions; so, are you saying that if a new agreement was made, exactly the same way, but without the economic provisions, it would effectively stop the rising temperature? Even the allowances for developing countries, if they can even be considered that at this point, the Paris Accords would be able to solve this issue?

The Paris Accords allow for a range of 1.5 degrees increase; wouldn't that still contribute to rising temperatures?

For you Americans that is 1.5 degrees Celsius.

Well your a fucking retard then cunt.

>but without the economic provisions
I never said that, I think the economic stimulus included in the accords is vital in spearheading renewable energy companies. Don't put words in my mouth please.

Genocides and sterilization campaigns in 3rd world countries with too high population growth.

Indeed you didn't say that, however I mentioned in my first post to try to stay away from the economic provisions.

Regardless, let's say that we keep the economic provisions; you believe that the Paris agreement is fine as it is, even with the incredible economic pain it causes for the US industry?

If carbon emissions were not penalized or taxed, what would encourage the switch to cleaner sources?

It's not causing any more pain than is happening naturally as first world nations transition away from those types of industries. It's just extra incentive to innovate in the field of renewable energy. A few thousand redneck jobs are meaningless when the entire planet is at stake.

While a rising human population does increase the amount of carbon dioxide put into the air, certainly we could agree that the use of carbon-emitting energy sources adds more to the problem then the breathing of large populations.

Stop foreign aid to developing countries to slow their population growth.

And use the money on nuclear fusion development/improving fission

Then certainly countries such as China and India, who also have "redneck" jobs such as coal production, could be removed instead?

What if a new agreement called for the replacement of all carbon-based energy sources for clean-energy sources not just in the US, but world-wide? Would this be a better agreement?

It's important for third world countries to quickly expand and prosper to the point where they can also afford to follow Europe and the USA forward. Holding them back isn't going to fix anything and using other nations shortcomings as an excuse to destroy the planet is childish.

Root cause for increased use energy is unsustainable population growth, it gets even worse if their standards of living improves and consumption increases.

Or limit aid only to countries that have implemented measures to limit population growth and preventing immigration from low consumption countries to high consumption countries should be a priority. As overpopulation can trigger civil wars and genocides.

Thorium based fission reactors is probably most obvious way to clean up energy production. Fusion is always 30 years away, has been since 50's.

Agreed, in addition to common sense proposals like the paris accords there should also be things like mandatory population control laws to prevent countries from having too many children. That's something the US and Europe could also lead by example.

Tax deductions proportional to the % of clean energy a company uses
For example: Company "X" uses 50kW a day and 30kW come from clean sources (Solar, Wind, etc) and company "Y" uses 90kW a day and 40kW come from clean sources. This would mean company "X" gets more tax deductions than company "Y" because company "X" depends more on clean energy than company "Y".

I hope this explains it well

All the money (which should be significantly less) should go into geoengineering instead of curbing industry.

Then instead of allowing for these countries to have a carbon allowance, wouldn't it be better to use the money provided by the US and other high-carbon producing developed countries to provide clean-energy technology, such as solar for example, to these third world countries?

If increased energy demands could be met with cleaner technologies, would the unsustainable population growth still be an issue in relation to energy and the warming temperature of the Earth?

That is an interesting idea; I am unsure if there are already provisions such as this. Would under developed countries have access to cleaner technologies to allow for this to occur? If not, then it would be hard for them to receive tax deductions if the technology is not in place.

not at all, the third world nations should be working toward modernizing as fast as possible so they can sustain their own clean energy tech rather than relying on hand outs. China using coal and such is actually a great thing in the long term but people have a hard time seeing past that. The US on the other hand has no excuse other than greedy corporations and opportunistic politicians like Trump.

He really fucked up by stopping the paris accords

>What Should a New Climate Agreement Look Like?

everyone agree to clean up the mess Japan and Israel made with their fukushima disaster

>What provisions would you include?

make Japan pay for 4 nuclear submarines and twelve lifter reactors to freeze the water surrounding the fukushima reactor complex so the water doesn't pour into the ocean and destroy the world's oxygen supply

For starters: Do not try to couch important issues like climate change in your progressive political agendas. The phrases "climate justice" "migrant rights" and "gender equality" appear in the first 2 pages of the accord and they have no business being anywhere in it. This more than anything killed the deal as we wish to deal with the climate problem facing our planet, not support your socio- political agenda by hobbling ourselves economically in its cause.

semantics is the hold up on saving the planet?

God you're fucking stupid.

That is effectively same thing as penalizing use of coal and oil.

>If increased energy demands could be met with cleaner technologies, would the unsustainable population growth still be an issue in relation to energy and the warming temperature of the Earth?

First energy source a developing nation will use is cheapest, most reliable one and most portable. Energy sources that meet those definitions are coal and oil, to limited degree wood would also meet the definition, but that requires a sustainable forestry.... something that is extremely rare in 3rd world countries. Biodiversity is also an issue. Pic related is border of two countries. One populated almost 100% with niggers and other by hispanics. Nigger country is pretty obvious.

Despite your wonderful doubles, would you be so kind as to explain how China using coal is a great thing in the long term? As I understand, isn't the use of coal in China adding to rising temperatures as well? Please forgive my ignorance.

Well played. Maybe you should create a fleet of airplanes to clean the air from all of the nuclear tests you have conducted.

If the agreement was truly about helping stop the rising temperature, why add these provisions? Just to look good?

Man made global warming doesn't make a dent in the changing of the climate. Global warming may be happening buts it's not from us. You want the human race to do something to fight the changing climate we can't control? Ok, our biggest problem is deforestation. All trees cut down should be replaced with planted trees. That's it.

Biodiversity is an issue for sure; perhaps in exchange for less developed countries using more carbon-based energy, there should be provisions requiring reforestation in proportion to the fuel used to counter the use of those fuels?

Allowing China to use fossil fuels to push their economy forward will allow them to become rich enough a nation to afford transitioning over to cleaner sources of energy. It's common sense, handicapping them now will only force them to use those dangerous fuels much longer than they would otherwise.

Arguing semantics about a vital treaty to save our planet is not wise, who cares if they talk about gender equality in the wording if the treaty itself will save the planet?

No, failing to address the real issue is. The paris accord is nothing but a framework for remolding society in a globalist image, using the guise of saving the planet as a vehicle for redistribution of wealth on an international scale while eroding the power of the state in favor of an oligarchal collection of globalists.

Come back with an accord that actually focuses on the climate problem instead of the nation state "problem"

The scientific community universally regards the paris accords as necessary and highly effective at the goal. You're hangup on the semantics is hugely dangerous and narrowminded.

the new climate agreement should be one that ensures the sterilization of the third world humans, everyone will sign onto it, and the third world will slowly die out

everyone will rejoice, every sane first world leader will sign it

You're insane, the first world profits only because the third world exists. No sane leader would want to do that.

>That is effectively same thing as penalizing use of coal and oil.
But it's not, if you don't use clean energy you pay the full tax and as soon as you start using clean energy you'd get tax deductions.


>One populated almost 100% with niggers and other by hispanics. Nigger country is pretty obvious.
I know that this is not part of the answer to my post, but it'd be nice to lay off the racist terms. I know we're in Sup Forums but we can be better than that.

Thank you for your explanation. However, what is the incentive for China to move towards cleaner energy under the current agreement? From the Chinese prospective, wouldn't it be wiser to stay in the developing countries category to allow for the continued use of carbon-based fuels? Of course, if China moved to cleaner energy after a period that would be wonderful, but what incentive is there to do so from a Chinese prospective if other countries will pick up the tab?

I know people actually reading the accord causes problems for you, but I won't be the last, and thankfully I was not the only one. The rejection of this globalist trojan horse was the best thing thing that could possibly have happened. Maybe next time the parties involved will temper their political ambitions and draft something that actually addresses the issue it claims to.

They don't want a worldwide disaster and refugee influx anymore than anyone else. They'll do whats right when it becomes viable for them to do so.

>china doing what's right

lol

In a capialist system, there's always going to be a society that's technologically behind the rest, so if the third world dissapears for some reason, the "least" developed countries of the first world would become the new "third world".

It's a matter of moving goalposts and our obsession with classifying everything.

>hurr durr muh pronouns are more important than saving the planet
you're no better than the SJW's you claim to be fighting against

>implying they want their shoreline and coastal cities submerged
Of course they will, ameritard.

Out of curiosity have you ever been to China? If the answer to that is yes then you already know the answer to your own question.

t. condescending prick

I find climate change hilarious. There is no issue. No problem.
What I do find intruiging, is how the Pope pretend to be champion of "science" and is fighting climate change. When he knows full well his organization caused it and can fix it immediately if he wanted to. But just as he pretends to fight pedos in his ranks, he pretends to fight global warming. And the whole world eats all this bullshit up, from the "smartest" scientists down to the retarded masses.
But bullshit can only pile up so far, before one has to eat it. And the Pope is neck deep in bullshit now, and the world get's to see him eat it soon.

Oh... and US is undeniably #1, the rest of the world pales in comparison once again. Top kek.

When it comes to biofuels, those will require a lot of farmland and/or forests to grow. Reforestation will also reduce biodiversity when compared

Biodiversity is also huge sustainability issue for humanity even outside of scope of climate change.

Part of 3rd world energy problem is the lacking infrastructure in 3rd world countries. They simply cannot use technologies like electric trains as their railways aren't electrified and their electricity networks aren't reliable. That is the reason why any energy source they need for modernization has to be portable, that leads to original problem... they need coal and oil.

>But it's not, if you don't use clean energy you pay the full tax and as soon as you start using clean energy you'd get tax deductions.

You don't get it? It works exactly like having energy taxed in two categories, low for clean energy sources and higher for fossil fuels.

>I know that this is not part of the answer to my post, but it'd be nice to lay off the racist terms. I know we're in Sup Forums but we can be better than that.

When in Rome, do as Romans do. When in Sup Forums, do as Sup Forumsacks do.

Yes I have, although it was for a short time and I was only in the Beijing area. The smog was so bad I was told multiple times not to go outside on certain days. Yet, it has been this way for a while, and there has been no changes. The Chinese government has little concern for their people in general. I am trying to prompt others to consider it by leading them to form their own conclusions.

China is already moving towards cleaner energy due to massive local pollution issues in their biggest cities caused by lots of coal power and increased traffic.

China has been creating artificial land in the South China Sea; why not do this near their coast cities? Japan has done this in Tokyo already for many years.

If (((they))) really cared about climate change, then the (((green economy))) would be an actual competitor with petroleum and coal. At this point, (((alternative energy))) is nothing more than tranny bathroom-level virtue signaling, and will stay as such until it either poses a threat to; or can replace fossil fuels.
The best way to stop global warming is to convince the kikes that it is in their monetary interests to do so. Carbon taxes won't do it.
Bullshit virtue signaling accords won't do it.
Shilling about climate change-doomsday won't do it.
A profitable, and clean alternative to fossil fuel is the only way.
For the alternative to be profitable, it needs to be scarce in some way, unlike sunlight or wind. It needs to be something we can fight over.

bump

>birth rates already below replacement levels in US and Europe
>retard thinks US and Europe should lead the way in depopulation
>retard is retarded

>climate problem

>implies that average temperature change of few degrees doesn't have massive environmental effects.

we should bottle wind energy

...

highly skewed, ONE degree of temp change on statistically TINY sample of 1.2 trillion cu km of water and 4 billion cu km of atmosphere all swirling about in chaotic interatction

>implying that claiming we can detect the average temp of the earth to one degree accuracy
>implying that we can look 130 years into the past and determine the average temp of the earth to one degree accuracy
>total batshit commie agenda insanity

It doesn't. Go look up Randall Carson on Joe Roegan. We've gone through a warming period of 15F over 10-20 years when a meteor hit and the earth survived.

Global warming is nothing more than another Jewish front for extermination white Gentiles.

you should apply for a job at the IPCC. if they hired you you would raise the average "scientist" iq in that noble commie organization

Global Effort to collaboratively develop cleaner energy technologies, like the development of the ISS.
- Fusion reactor that generates a net positive amount of energy
- Carbon conversion devices that can be attached to coal power plants turning carbon emissions into biofuels.

The best way to deal with climate change for good is simply make carbon capture and conversion profitable. Do that and all coal power plants would immediately upgrade themselves. Solar and Wind are dead ends that depend too much on rare earth metals which China holds a majority of.

there is no such thing as AGW. quit being a cock sucking retard, commie.

>What Should a New Climate Agreement Look Like?
Any and all economic activity in concerned European nations should be restricted until a feudal age standard of living is enjoyed by all citizens of the EU. This should stave off the wrath of their "One tenth of a degree god" they're so worried about. The rest of us can continue as usual.

excellent proposal user...can you catch the next flight to Paris to straighten those commie bastards out?

(((Scientific community)))

All countries agree to tax greenhouse gases by a certain amount which scales up every so often.

Do you luminaries even know what the first, second, and third worlds are?

First world = US and Western Europe. Second World is communist countries, specifically the Soviet Union while it existed. Third world is everyone else. This shit has been obsolete since the wall came down.

>scientific community

the biggest problem environmentally is the cutting down of forests.

clean energy should be sought after so we live on a pollution free planet.

plasma waste technologies exist currently to actually turn landfills into energy, more should be done to develop this technology.

over the next couple of decades most 1st world countries will run their vehicles on electricity cutting pollution.

sustainble fishing so we don't run out of fish. cutting down on cattle farming so we don't have to use vast amounts of land for them to live on.

the bigger the population of humans the less animals we will be able to eat individually. likely leading to larger vegetarianism.

i will add that "climate change ideology" clearly takes a truth (problem of pollution, something which does need to be addressed) and turns it into a control mechanism of government.

the world is not going to end, nor will there be climate catastrophe, if we don't cut down on pollution, it will just be very polluted and not nice to live on.

>It doesn't. Go look up Randall Carson on Joe Roegan. We've gone through a warming period of 15F over 10-20 years when a meteor hit and the earth survived.

Earth will certainly survive global warming, ecosystem would get fucked and go out of balance. Humanity is still part of said ecosystem.

>wild implications of communism.

Best way to solve environmental issues facing humanity is genocide in 3rd world countries as root cause of sustainability issues is uncontrolled population growth in 3rd world countries.

While fusion power is nice goal, but there is a problem. Successful development is uncertain as fuck and underfunded. There are simpler and cheaper ways to solve clean energy production problem, thorium based breeder reactors. That would also simplify solving long term storage issues with nuclear waste.

not wild implications at all. Agenda 21 and all these climate agreements are straight up global socialism and you wimpy eurofags may dream of singing kumbaya while holding hands with your somali boyfriends, but there are still a lot of rational people who will fight this faggy nonsense with every rational breath. It's a political agenda, not a global catastrophe, and I use the word commie in jest, for it is actually far more like fascism economically and politically.

>Agenda 21

While social factors part of Agenda 21 are utter bullshit, actual environmental and demographic parts of it are unfortunately pretty damn real. Some of solutions proposed in it just are plain wrong. Best way to solve issues with third world population growth and mass immigration are actually genocide and mass sterilization programs in Africa.

The globe is always cooling and getting warm. 200 years ago, before the industreal revolution, the river thames would freeze over. Now the river never freezes. The average tempurature must of gone up at least 20 degrees between, then and now. So is this just nature doing this thing? Or is this our fault and problem?

or, you know, maybe encouraging them to develop since citizens of prosperous nations tend to have lower birthrates.

>or, you know, maybe encouraging them to develop since citizens of prosperous nations tend to have lower birthrates.

Chicken or egg issue. High birth rates prevent investing into education system and in many third world countries people are simply too damn stupid to understand things like sustainable population, sustainable economic or sustainable environmental policy.

There's a reason shitskins don't develop prosperous nations, you dumb CIA nigger. It's because they're shitskins. They will NEVER amount to anything. You're chasing after a mirage.

>how to save the earth
Sterilize the 3rd world. I'm dead serious.