[Tricks]

N_Fiddledog N_Fiddledog:

It makes sense that the US would be the one to reject the agreement, because Americans are required to shoulder a disproportionate share of the burden. This in spite of the fact China is responsible for the greatest share of actual emissions, yet they get a pass. Then there's India...

I love how disingenuous that statement is. Are they responsible for more emissions right this second? Yes. But the USA is responsible for 30% of the c02 production in history. Meaning of the increase in c02 levels, the USA is responsible for 30% of that themselves. And on a per capita basis? The USA still doubles them.

[N_Fiddledog]

Tricks Tricks:

Sorry, I missed this, I guess you didn't see that the Donald had signed it.

I don't think he did miss it. I think what he was saying was as a businessman Trump had to fall in line with political consensus on climate change. That's the way corporatism works. Even oil companies like Shell have supported nonsense like cap n trade. They don't really care they just adjust the books, everybody pays a little more and they pay a little less with subsidies and tax breaks. But they get to be seen as being on board with the "consensus."

Once Trump becomes the guy who can manage the political policy however you get to hear what he really thinks.

[Tricks]

N_Fiddledog N_Fiddledog:

Tricks Tricks:

Sorry, I missed this, I guess you didn't see that the Donald had signed it.

I don't think he did miss it. I think what he was saying was as a businessman Trump had to fall in line with political consensus on climate change. That's the way corporatism works. Even oil companies like Shell have supported nonsense like cap n trade. They don't really care they just adjust the books, everybody pays a little more and they pay a little less with subsidies and tax breaks. But they get to be seen as being on board with the "consensus."

Once Trump becomes the guy who can manage the political policy however you get to hear what he really thinks.

Oh so he's not willing to stand up with his beliefs if it means he might make a buck? Seems like a good president.

[Tricks]

Tricks Tricks:

N_Fiddledog N_Fiddledog:

It makes sense that the US would be the one to reject the agreement, because Americans are required to shoulder a disproportionate share of the burden. This in spite of the fact China is responsible for the greatest share of actual emissions, yet they get a pass. Then there's India...

I love how disingenuous that statement is. Are they responsible for more emissions right this second? Yes. But the USA is responsible for 30% of the c02 production in history. Meaning of the increase in c02 levels, the USA is responsible for 30% of that themselves. And on a per capita basis? The USA still doubles them.

To illustrate what I mean total c02 emissions from 1850-2007

$1:

1. US: 339,174 MT or 28.8%
2. China: 105,915 MT or 9.0%
3. Russia: 94,679 MT or 8.0%
4. Germany: 81,194.5 MT or 6.9%
5. UK: 68,763 MT or 5.8%
6. Japan: 45,629 MT or 3.87%
7. France: 32,667 MT or 2.77%
8. India: 28,824 MT or 2.44%
9. Canada: 25,716 MT or 2.2%
10. Ukraine: 25,431 MT or 2.2%

That's why the USA got burdened with so much cost. They're the biggest part of the problem.

[N_Fiddledog]

Tricks Tricks:

N_Fiddledog N_Fiddledog:

It makes sense that the US would be the one to reject the agreement, because Americans are required to shoulder a disproportionate share of the burden. This in spite of the fact China is responsible for the greatest share of actual emissions, yet they get a pass. Then there's India...

I love how disingenuous that statement is. Are they responsible for more emissions right this second? Yes. But the USA is responsible for 30% of the c02 production in history. Meaning of the increase in c02 levels, the USA is responsible for 30% of that themselves. And on a per capita basis? The USA still doubles them.

If what you actually want to do is decrease emissions then you want to decrease the emissions of the largest emitters and those whose emissions are increasing at a greater rate than others.

If what you want to do is create some sort of system of "reparations" for what you consider misdeeds of the past, do that, but say so.

Speaking of disingenuous, I mean...

[Tricks]

N_Fiddledog N_Fiddledog:

Tricks Tricks:

N_Fiddledog N_Fiddledog:

It makes sense that the US would be the one to reject the agreement, because Americans are required to shoulder a disproportionate share of the burden. This in spite of the fact China is responsible for the greatest share of actual emissions, yet they get a pass. Then there's India...

I love how disingenuous that statement is. Are they responsible for more emissions right this second? Yes. But the USA is responsible for 30% of the c02 production in history. Meaning of the increase in c02 levels, the USA is responsible for 30% of that themselves. And on a per capita basis? The USA still doubles them.

If what you actually want to do is decrease emissions then you want to decrease the emissions of the largest emitters and those whose emissions are increasing at a greater rate than others.

If what you want to do is create some sort of system of "reparations" for what you consider misdeeds of the past, do that, but say so.

Speaking of disingenuous, I mean...

Oh yeah, china is doing nothing to reduce emissions.

https://www.theguardian.com/environment ... superpower

The reason it was structured this way is because the USA took advantage of the energy that this can produce to propel itself to it's current position of wealth. If you profited off the destruction of the planet, shouldn't you suffer for it's repair?

[N_Fiddledog]

Tricks Tricks:

Oh yeah, china is doing nothing to reduce emissions.

https://www.theguardian.com/environment ... superpower

The reason it was structured this way is because the USA took advantage of the energy that this can produce to propel itself to it's current position of wealth. If you profited off the destruction of the planet, shouldn't you suffer for it's repair?

China is asking you to watch its left hand so you don't see what its right hand is doing.

Its emissions keep increasing and it's currently the #1 emitter. That's what it come down to.

The US is the larger part of the engine that created a society where we have all the benefits we have. What are you saying? That America needs to be punished for leading us here?

If you'd prefer to take your craps in an unlit outhouse in the middle of winter, feel free, but don't expect me to join your 'forward to the past' club. If you want to punish the advanced nations for bringing us to where we are I'm not on your side.

And if modern civilization is so bad why should we allow slower countries greater emissions to catch up?

[Tricks]

N_Fiddledog N_Fiddledog:

Tricks Tricks:

Oh yeah, china is doing nothing to reduce emissions.

https://www.theguardian.com/environment ... superpower

The reason it was structured this way is because the USA took advantage of the energy that this can produce to propel itself to it's current position of wealth. If you profited off the destruction of the planet, shouldn't you suffer for it's repair?

China is asking you to watch its left hand so you don't see what its right hand is doing.

Its emissions keep increasing and it's currently the #1 emitter. That's what it come down to.

It's number 1 with 3-4 times as many people. Per capita, USA still holds that title.

$1:

The US is the larger part of the engine that created a society where we have all the benefits we have. What are you saying? That America needs to be punished for leading us here?

Punished isn't the right word. Take responsibility is more apt.

$1:

And if modern civilization is so bad why should we allow slower countries greater emissions to catch up?

Isn't that what you're asking them to do anyways?

Lets put it this way. If a company within a town provides jobs and prosperity to the town, but at the same time completely destroys the town's drinking water, should the company be responsible for helping pay for the restoration of the water? If not, you and I look at the world very differently. Exploiting something for substantial personal gain that you pass on part of doesn't absolve you of responsibility for the exploitation.

[N_Fiddledog]

There's no way to weasel statistic one's way out of it.

If China is the greater emitter and you actually want to decrease emissions it doesn't make sense to allow them to continue to build coal powered factories while America is expected to cut back and shoulder a greater burden.

That's if you actually think you can decrease emissions. The larger critique would be there's no reason to believe the Paris Accord can do what it claims it will anyway. Kyoto didn't work. Why do you think Paris will?

And what's with all the bad metaphors? You're asking an entire country to pay some sort of "climate reparations" for something we're not even sure was a crime and claiming doing so is going to do some good we have yet to see evidence of. And you're claiming this climate crime was a crime in the past, so there must be punishment, but no punishment needs to be handed out for those committing greater incidents of the crime as we speak. In fact you want to reward them.

I don't see how your 'city with the bad water' metaphor fits all that. Because it doesn't.

[Tricks]

N_Fiddledog N_Fiddledog:

There's no way to weasel statistic one's way out of it.

If China is the greater emitter and you actually want to decrease emissions it doesn't make sense to allow them to continue to build coal powered factories while America is expected to cut back and shoulder a greater burden.

That's if you actually think you can decrease emissions. The larger critique would be there's no reason to believe the Paris Accord can do what it claims it will anyway. Kyoto didn't work. Why do you think Paris will?

And what's with all the bad metaphors? You're asking an entire country to pay some sort of "climate reparations" for something we're not even sure was a crime and claiming doing so is going to do some good we have yet to see evidence of. And you're claiming this climate crime was a crime in the past, so there must be punishment, but no punishment needs to be handed out for those committing greater incidents of the crime as we speak. In fact you want to reward them.

I don't see how your 'city with the bad water' metaphor fits all that. Because it doesn't.

Do you willfully ignore the fact that both China and India are moving away from coal as quickly as they can? Or do you just not know that? China canceled 85 proposed coal plants this year and are building green energy alternatives a hell of a lot faster than the U.S. is. I definitely wish they were doing more, and if Trump came back to the table for the agreement and said the U.S. would happily rejoin provided China did more to reduce it's emissions than they currently are, I'd cheer for him. We both know that's not going to happen.

It's also hilarious that you harp on a country for "not doing enough" when it's percentage of green energy is larger than the USA, and that the only reason it is needing to have so much coal is because of it's population. What do you propose they do? Kill half the people? Coal is quick cheap and easy so that people can survive. When you compare the two countries on even terms, china is spanking the U.S. in it's initiatives.

[Tricks]

I don't even know why I'm discussing this with you, you don't believe in climate change, so it doesn't matter if china was greener than cow shit. You still wouldn't support it because you don't believe in the root problem. Reply if you wish, I won't bother anymore, I have better things to do.

[N_Fiddledog]

By all means. Who am I to insist you have to stick around here and be wrong. I don't even see why you'd want to.

But if you should decide to stay, you don't have to listen to me. Here ya go. Listen to Donald.

~ The Paris Climate Accord is simply the latest example of Washington entering into an agreement that disadvantages the United States to the exclusive benefit of other countries, leaving American workers . . . and taxpayers to absorb the cost in terms of lost jobs, lower wages, shuttered factories, and vastly diminished economic production. ~

[N_Fiddledog]

And BTW I do believe in climate change as in the climate changes. Who doesn't.

I don't believe in the climate cult of some day apocalypse by nice weather.

[Sunnyways]

India and China have far greater populations than the US and most of these people are relatively poor. You have to look at the CO2 per person as well. If India had to reduce its footprint these people would be consigned to a grim standard of living for a long time hence.

[Sunnyways]

Does Trump really believe the rest of the world is going to open up this deal for him?