This board is awash with threads of how "pointless" the Paris agreement is. How can Americans miss the point so hard...

This board is awash with threads of how "pointless" the Paris agreement is. How can Americans miss the point so hard? Sure, climate change defenders usually do it because it's "cool" or they get paid, but that's no excuse to be stupid on the other side.

The agreement is meant to give money to poor, undeveloped industrial countries so they can steer away from needing to just feed their populations and take control of environmental issues. While it takes money away from rich countries so they waste less.

Over the last historical period, that of US imperial dominance, the US and it's close sphere (western Europe) have appropriated a large amount of wealth from the rest of the world. That's all fine and good, only niggers and sad liberals really blame you for that, but it's caused a situation of imbalance that can only be solved by sharing wealth, so they are able to detach themselves from polluting industry without dying from huger.

Now, whether climate change is what it's said to be and whether it's man-made is up for debate. But you people seem to be stuck on "hurr it's a stupid agreement it only gives money to India and China and does nothing for climate change".

Other urls found in this thread:

youtu.be/uEvu0HQQKKs
youtu.be/aOYfUlOXMyU
youtu.be/cHGkdPPlnR8
twitter.com/AnonBabble

Because liberals swore up and down that it was about the environment and not a welfare scheme.

Also if its a welfare scheme, be up front about that so we can make fun of how much is sucks at that by transferring money from the US to Russia and China who don't really fucking need it.

No moar gibs, so sad :(

America is done for
最好快学话语把

youtu.be/uEvu0HQQKKs
youtu.be/aOYfUlOXMyU
youtu.be/cHGkdPPlnR8

>While it takes money away from rich countries so they waste less.

Fuck off. Stop promoting out of control nigger breeding and maybe then I'll believe you're serious about the environment.

It is a wellfare scheme, if you want to put that way.

More precisely its an imperial restructuring scheme. The most successful white empire of all-time, the Romans, had several periods where too much wealth was concentrated around Rome. So they had to either spread it to their conquered territories, or risk death. Same thing is happening to you. It's a very simple historical inevitability.

We don't get gibs.

The fuck

That's what i thought. Stupid nigger

Pouring money into developing countries so that they can make more people and more industry isn't going to decrease global carbon emissions.

The way to decrease global carbon emissions is by controlling the population of rapidly breeding niggers.

What the fuck are you literally on about

What niggers and how am I in any way related to that

>The agreement is meant to give money to poor, undeveloped industrial countries so they can steer away from needing to just feed their populations and take control of environmental issues.

How do I benefit from giving foreign countries 100 billion a year? How do I know that it's actually going to anything related to climate issues and not just buying some third world dictator a third yacht?

>Over the last historical period, that of US imperial dominance, the US and it's close sphere (western Europe) have appropriated a large amount of wealth from the rest of the world.

Every country does that, the west is just good at it. If the tables turned, the east wouldn't do it back.

>it's caused a situation of imbalance that can only be solved by sharing wealth, so they are able to detach themselves from polluting industry without dying from huger.

Why would I want to solve that imbalance?

You seem to have a lot of arguments based around things that have absolutely nothing to do with climate and would not benefit westerners in any way.

America is done for, europeans should turn their eyes east

China can cure your refugee problem where america can only worsen it

And so now we're back to making fun of you for wanting an agreement that transfers wealth from the 1st, 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th, 8th and 10th largest economies and gives it to the 2nd, 7th, and 9th largest economies, just counting the top 10.

I think when the dust settles we'll all see that america is on the wrong side of history on this one.

Because welfare doesn't work.

Yes let's send money to the UN to fund even more 3rd world shit skins no thanks.

>How do I benefit from giving foreign countries 100 billion a year? How do I know that it's actually going to anything related to climate issues and not just buying some third world dictator a third yacht?

Because you're not really funding third world countries with dictators here. You watch too many movies. Also you're not transferring a lump sum to the bank account of a country.

>Every country does that, the west is just good at it. If the tables turned, the east wouldn't do it back

The "west" (I'm assuming we are talking about the current period of US dominance) is quite bad at imperialism actually. Even the Turks lasted longer than you are right now. Even they had periods of transferring wealth and such.

>Why would I want to solve that imbalance?

Because your comfort and standard of life still depends on leeching from the rest of the world. If you don't help stop pollution, it's your own wealth you lose.

If you have to pay a million to gain two, would you? There is no fairy tale answer where you get your cake and eat it too.

Economy size doesn't mean dick squat.

If you don't know which statistics to use, don't even try.

>The agreement is meant to give money to poor, undeveloped industrial countries so they can steer away from needing to just feed their populations and take control of environmental issues

Then they should apply for foreign aid. The US gives out tons of it every year. We don't need some shell game keeping us on the hook for it.

China's just a developing country according to the paris accord. They have a long way to go before they can play with the big boys apparently.

Watch the links i posted
You trumpniggers are actually pushing the US backwards, not that I really mind imho

Wasn't trump gonna stop funding the UN and other international US organisations?

It takes money from the US and spreads out around to unappreciative shit tier countries. Fuck that. AGTOW

china dominates dick squat. They just steal tech from the west.

Keep that attitude up and youll wake up to WA and CA becoming chinese states

>stupid can't read

Merkel's disgusting old man panties are all wadded up over his NATO comments. Thing is, he's not wrong. EU niggers always got a hand out for dem gibs. At least Aus is like your good buddy at the bar who will always punch first when you start shit.

>The agreement is meant to give money to poor, undeveloped industrial countries so they can steer away from needing to just feed their populations and take control of environmental issues. While it takes money away from rich countries so they waste less.

So it's communism on a global scale?

>WA and CA becoming chinese states.

The beginning of the end for china.

>How do I benefit from giving foreign countries 100 billion a year?

Assuming your goal is to reduce global carbon emissions, it makes sense to apply funds where they will have the most effect. Emissions standards in the U.S. are already quite high. Standards in developing nations are much lower. So you could spend $1million on a U.S. plant to reduce emissions by a further 2%, or you could spend that same million on a factory in Chad and reduce their emissions by 70%.

Again, this works on the assumption that your own goal is to reduce carbon emissions. If you don't give a fuck, then $100 billion spent elsewhere is to your detriment.

>Because you're not really funding third world countries with dictators here. You watch too many movies. Also you're not transferring a lump sum to the bank account of a country.

We are not talking about Bulgaria in particular, we're talking about developing countries in general. I have no idea how that money is going to be apportioned, and neither do you.

>The "west" (I'm assuming we are talking about the current period of US dominance) is quite bad at imperialism actually. Even the Turks lasted longer than you are right now. Even they had periods of transferring wealth and such.

That only makes me want to globally redistribute even less.

>Because your comfort and standard of life still depends on leeching from the rest of the world. If you don't help stop pollution, it's your own wealth you lose.

We pay for everything we get overseas. Besides, all you're saying is we should give them some money in order to make them richer so we can leech more from them. In order for me to think that's a good idea, you have to prove that a wealth redistribution scheme to developing countries is actually going to make leeching off of the more profitable. Which of course is a completely ridiculous question because we pay for all that shit.

I don't even need to argue whether global wealth redistribution is a good idea at this point because you haven't even thought this concept through.

>absorbing the heartland of US tech is the end of china

Lmao

So basically what you're telling us, OP, is that the Paris agreement was a lie, never had anything to do with climate, and was always about socialistic welfare for backwards nations of brown retards. Yes, I think we all figured that out, and that's why we are happy it was abandoned.

>Economy size doesn't mean dick squat.
Cool, new agreement then. You all send all your money to the US and we'll 'totally solve' Climate Change for you.

Why the fuck should we share our wealth. Fuck you. The only good commie is a dead commie. Come get some.

Fuck off SJW cuck you're on the wrong board

Shouldn't the biggest polluters spend the money on themselves first rather then giving it to countries that pollute little?

>Absorbing the cancer epicenter

CA and WA will turn china into an open borders faggot parade.

China doesn't have the constitutional strength that we do in the US.

practically speaking there was no reason for the americans to stay in the agreement. the decision to leave was a right one -- they stand to gain everything and lose nothing.

the greatest advantage the americans have isn't their military, economy or soft power -- it's geography. they can afford to withdraw from the world if they choose and wouldn't be any worse off for it. there isn't anything in the rest of the world that can't be obtained in the western hemisphere.

what they've done is pulled the rug out from under europe's feet. without american money, power and influence these agreements have no legs. you admit it as much by acknowledging american hegemony. i doubt very much that germany can subsidize the chinese solar panel industry in the same way the americans could.

Are you a communist and or in Antifa? What is your political ideology?

This user is correct.

If the treaty is so important why dont China, Germany etc just put in the extra money that America would?

Holy shit, I'd expect more from you.

But we'll say it one more fucking time. Handing money to Jewish oligarchs never has and never will solve a single fucking thing. Get it through your thick fucking head.

Trumps whole point is that regardless of the motives of the rich people who don't feel the impact of this, there are millions of people out of work or underemployed due to NAFTA and environmental programs to shift wealth and jobs out of the country.

While rich trust-fund people find this philanthropic and "good", it really sucks for average people trying to find a living wage.

Trump basically is saying "Fuck your Global Welfare Program".

I would rather have great jobs and a booming economy than niggers living it up on my nations wealth.

Your foreign aid goes to NGOs that promote pro-US and anti-Russian propaganda or ends up in your own big corporations' overseas branch.

Every retard knows this.

I wasn't aware I got any gibs. I'll go ask my US owned bank if the 200 euro salary got increased because my glorious imperial overlords decided to give some of their profits back.

lmao
>if you outcompete your competitors, they win, because you have to make yourself less competitive so they can catch up because if they get too far behind you they will destroy you.

liberal logic.

And I think in a week or two, those around you will believe that you're a fucking faggot leaf nigglett

Goddamn Bulgaria got utterly and completely rekt in this thread. Pack it up folks, nothing left to see here but a smoldering corpse.

And we care because why again....?

Poster doesn't realize most Americans would just rather the west coast fall off into the ocean

>We are not talking about Bulgaria in particular, we're talking about developing countries in general. I have no idea how that money is going to be apportioned, and neither do you.

Nor does any accord or agreement or whatever guarantee that. In the end, nothing does. So climate change global action boils down to this - risk it or do nothing.

The very ugly truth is that you losing money is about as effective as someone else gaining it.

>We pay for everything we get overseas

Lel this is so deeply untrue. You pay the price you yourself have set. What you get from developing countries is largely bought from your own corporations who use foreign labour to drive prices down, while keeping to lower standards and salaries. That's why it's funny you think trump keeping American jobs in America is to your benefit. It'll be hilarious when you can't afford an iPhone with your entire yearly salary.

>all you're saying is we should give them some money in order to make them richer so we can leech more from them

You're going off into the wrong direction. Let me give you a hint - Germany, one of the worst empires in history, took over the EU almost entirely around 2008 or so (being largely in control from around 2005, overpowering France). It started amassing large trade surpluses from Eastern Europe and leeching off us all to artificially maintain itself like you do. So it made the EU gibs.

The idea is that you spend all your money in the Lidl and buying German tech and cars in prices determined by their Euro, but then Hans takes pity and gives back enough so you can afford food and water to keep buying.

It's not for more profit, it's feeding your cattle so you can keep milking it.

Tell me, do ranchers not pay profit from milk for veterinarians when their cows are sick?

You're on the wrong website, sheep.

China doesn't have any real "wealth". Germany is your creation. I agree with what you say about them.

Your president is a Jewish puppet.

It's gonna be funny when you discover globalism was only ever in your benefit and against all the rest of us. When the size of a living wage gets higher and higher and you the standard stops dropping.

We propped your country up. Go sit in a corner.

Didn't say that.

Nice rebbit style comment, faggot.

>the nigger who killed more chinks than the japs killed in ww2 have his face stamped in their cash
communism lads

You literally have no idea what you are talking about. Your global "utopia" will not work out that way.

>>Because your comfort and standard of life still depends on leeching from the rest of the world. If you don't help stop pollution, it's your own wealth you lose.


This is a LIE. If you believe this public school drivel, you need to do some research.

Africa is fucked because Blacks are stupid, violent and impulsive. With all their natural resources, they should have wealthy nations, but nigs gotta nig, so they stay primitive.

The Islamic world is backward, closed-minded and riddled with mutilation and psychotic sectarian violence. We fear them because they are dangerous, inbred and will not abandon their shit ideology. Their economies only exist because of oil.

The West is KING because of protestant Christianity and English Common Law. That is the best formula on Earth for higher IQ peoples to live in peace and prosperity.

Only uninformed lefties believe we "stole" everything from ignant-ass niggahs.

I suppose you think Islam is true and Africans built the pyramids with telepathy?

Get based in reality before spewing your shit.

>We propped your country up

You haven't done shit for us. We would have been better off without you.

Unfortunately we need to apologize to you for that Germany thing

I agree but you must understand that Sup Forums is filled with literal autist and diehard Trumplet supporters. They are incapable, from a religious standpoint, of criticizing their president.

>can only be solved by sharing wealth

globalism was never in my benefit. globalism is why I can't afford a fucking home because the 1% in china buys up all the property in America and speculates it. globalism just helps the 1% of every country on the globe and fucks all the remaining people.

I'll give up some fake plastic junk imports so I can afford a fucking home and fucking family. we don't NEED plastic junk, but the trade dominated by plastic junk makes the stuff we do need impossible unless you're fucking rich as fuck by selling plastic junk.

Are you a communist? You sound like a giant leftypol faggot that should be gassed.

that claim has no basis in reality. what's good for jew bankers isn't good for the american people.

I'm not a globalist, my country is totally fucked by globalism. Destroying it would benefit me immensely.

It's just funny it'll come from those who benefit from it, while they think it's in their favor.

>Every western nation between 2 trillion to 20 trillion in debt
Yeah it sounds smart to borrow money you don't have to give to people that will abuse it.

Liberal Shill, again.

Why are these shills so determined to ship jobs offshore and kill our economy so global warming/cooling/whatever it is today - will be fixed?

Anyone who disagrees with global welfare is a Nazi.... These leftists cannot be that stupid. I'm sure they are being paid or getting college credit.

gotta luv all the Sup Forums phaggots like op claiming climate-change is debatable and some kind of welfare scheme.
shows ZERO understanding of economics or the paris agreements in general.
the public ALREADY pays the effects of climate change, but in the form of externalities.
this was just a step in getting the corporations causing the pollution to become accountable, instead of shifting the cost to the general public.

Yes. You could have some communist utopia controlled by Russia

Take straight from a college course where the Marxist prof is screwing this poster in the butthole for college credit.

Nobody can honestly believe this perspective.

> the public ALREADY pays the effects of climate change

Can you quantify this is any meaningful way without just taking the dollars done in damage from weather events and attributing it 100% to climate change?

You didn't steal shit from Africa. It was mostly France, the Netherlands and Belgium. And it wasn't stealing, it was conquering. No one gives a shit. However:

>The West is KING because of protestant Christianity and English Common Law. That is the best formula on Earth for higher IQ peoples to live in peace and prosperity

That must be a fucking joke. The west is as prosperous now because of its military power and conquering. Jack shit comes from "high IQ" and "good laws". Have you never picked up a history book?

>I suppose you think Islam is true and Africans built the pyramids with telepathy?

I am extremely racist and quit my high paying job in the Netherlands for exactly 16 times less pay because there were too many subhuman niggers and mudslimes around me.

Don't be a retard.

Gotta luv these commie retards that wants to give 1st world money to 3rd world niggers

>china can cure refugee problems
>imports chinese workers everywhere they invest

That's not true. I'm upset Trump isn't doing more to punish sanctuary cities and keep islamic radicals out. I'm upset he hasn't directed anger at states that are openly violating the 2nd and 1st amendment.

The man is far from infallible, but the Paris Climate Agreement is nothing more than a money laundering scam for banks that want to treat carbon footprints as a liquid asset.

Global Warming is really the intersectionality of relationship blending; the true synthesis of environmental perspectives and honest yet mild resource shifting to the clearly more deserving.

Translation: We have a complicated, charity-minded excuse for taking more of your shit and giving it to 3rd World turds who will breed like rabbits, turn jihadi, and come to America.

FTFY

shows u have ZERO understanding on economics.
marxism has nothing to do with any of this.
you can quantify it as externalities, like pollution.

I'm right wing and have voted right most of my life, plebbitora. But when we were freed from Russian commie slavery, you replaced it with western slavery that managed to somehow be just as bad.

Or you know, wait until it collapses and become the prosperous, free nation we were for the glorious few years between empires like Russia and yours jerking us around.

>I am a senior in high school who still lives with mommy: the post

SAD

Wasn't the west able to conquer because of advanced technology and tactics which require smarts to invent?

You're winning me over with all that sweet talk. Niggers are a scourge and to the victor go the spoils.

You're a ShariaBlue proxyfag and you live in Baltimore.

Sorry, wrong again, nipplehead.

The West is great because of the systems of belief that allowed it to advance economically. Put down your comic books and read history.

If conquering power was all it took, Rome would still be in power and little turds like you would still be sucking nigger dick for a pat on the head.

>The agreement is meant to give money to poor, undeveloped industrial countries so they can steer away from needing to just feed their populations and take control of environmental issues. While it takes money away from rich countries so they waste less.

It takes money our of the pocket of the working class. And the US was paying for it go look at the list of contributions and show me china.

Its was a shit deal so liberals can spend other peoples money.

Saudis should pay the tax on it since they're the one profiting off the oil.

When you get them to pay, maybe I'll think about supporting the idea.

If we're not careful, the West will fall in the same way Rome did. Through insane decadence purchased on credit and irreverence for the safety of its own people.

gotta luv all the shills claiming economic theory is some kind of conspiracy.
unless you pin a cost on pollution, the oil industry will not attempt to control it.
but please, tell us how this is all an attempt to steal jobs from white people.

>While it takes money away from rich countries so they waste less.
Shut the fuck up, nigger.

>So they had to either spread it to their conquered territories, or risk death. Same thing is happening to you. It's a very simple historical inevitability.

We have a large amount of America that can benefit from that first. This is about people who dont care that the American working class is getting robbed so that liberals can give money away.

You seem to think artificially propping up third world countries with wealth transfers from first world countries is both virtuous and effective. What happens when the money runs out? My guess is all the "aid" will go to building up infrastructure that multinational oil and mineral companies will find useful while allowing the locals to live exactly like they did before, but with more runoff pollution.

All the anger here is from the lefties pissed off that productive people aren't giving their money away.

Pretty simple. Dummies want our money...

Actually the oil and auto industry has been dealing with it through free market solutions. The biggest driver for fuel efficient cars has been the raising cost of oil due to shortages.

anything you change the laws, you are redistributing wealth. its not about protecting interests, its about making something sustainable

The west isn't stupid, it has smarts, but it's prosperity isn't based on high IQ nonetheless.

Taкa ли бe, пeдepacт? Я ce въpни в peддит пpи cвoитe и ми ocтaви фopyмa нa миpa. И нe ми гoвopи зa Гyгъл тpaнcлeйт, зaщoтo тaм бългapcкия хич гo нямa.

You're right wing but you want to redistribute money to globally? Sure thing.

CA tech is dying.

And you will be absorbing maximum liberal cancer.

Have you actually read history past the last 200 years? Educate yourself and dont spout shit based on Wikipedia.

The assumption of course is that Chad will use the funds to reduce emissions. But why would they? Why not do what US states do, take the money and use it elsewhere so they can go back and ask for it again next year. And again and again and again.

If you really want a fix then use tariffs on goods produced from polluting factories.

Take money out of Civilization to give to barbarians who will never develop, great idea, what could go wrong