1. Discuss politics - join our community by registering for free here! HOP - the political discussion forum

Trump withdrawal from the Paris agreement.

Discussion in 'U.S. Politics' started by Aus22, Jun 2, 2017.

  1. Openmind

    Openmind Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 2011
    Messages:
    4,109
    Likes Received:
    118
    Location:
    Currently Belgium
    China (but NOT India)is a bigger offenders than USA as a whole.
    HOWEVER, if you look at the PER CAPITA, the USA is the biggest offender, AND, under Trump, USA is not working to lower its impact.

    "Developed country Parties should continue taking the lead by undertaking economy-wide absolute emission reduction targets," the text says. "Developing country Parties should continue enhancing their mitigation efforts, and are encouraged to move over time towards economy-wide emission reduction or limitation targets in the light of different national circumstances."

    The distinction is made because developed countries, on a per capita basis, often produce more greenhouse gases than developing countries. Pruitt claimed that China and India and are polluting more than the United States, but that's misleading.

    China (but not India) does produce more carbon dioxide than the United States, but it has nearly 1.4 billion people compared to 325 million for the United States. So, on a per capita basis, the United States in 2015 produced more than double the carbon dioxide emissions as China -- and eight times more than India.

    While some small countries have higher per capita pollution rates than the United States, the United States is by far the largest emitter of carbon dioxide among the 10 most populous countries.

    So what did China and India pledge to do in their plans?

    China, in its submission, said that, compared to 2005 levels, it would cut its carbon emissions by 60 percent to 65 percent per unit of GDP by 2030. India said it would reduce its emissions per unit of economic output by 33 percent to 35 percent below 2005 by 2030.

    Note that both countries pledge to reach these goals by 2030, meaning they are taking steps now to meet their commitments.

    India, for instance, seeks to have renewable power make up 40 percent of its power base by 2030, so it is investing heavily in solar energy. The country is now on track to become the world's third-largest solar power market in 2018, after China and the United States. China is also investing heavily in renewable energy.

    The United States, under President Barack Obama, pledged to reduce emissions by 26 percent to 28 percent by 2025, compared to 2005 levels. It was an ambitious program, but President Donald Trump is rapidly abandoning the regulations and programs that Obama hoped would help the U.S. meet the goal.

    The Climate Action Tracker, an independent science-based assessment that tracks emission commitments and actions of countries, rates China and India as making "medium" efforts toward addressing climate change, not entirely consistent with achieving the Paris goal of limiting warming below 2 degrees Celsius.

    The U.S. is also rated as medium. But the group has said that if Trump follows through on an executive order that seeks to roll back Obama administration efforts, the United States would be rated as making "inadequate" efforts. Under the Trump approach, U.S. emissions would be about the same in 2025 and 2030 as today, the group said.

    Pruitt clearly needs to brush up on the Paris Accord, as it's false to claim that China and India have "no obligations" until 2030.

    China and India, just like the United States, have made commitments that are supposed to be fulfilled by 2030, meaning they have to take action now in order to meet those goals. The United States made more substantial commitments -- which the Trump administration is abandoning -- because the United States, on a per capita basis, is a much bigger polluter than either country."

    Fact check: Do China, India have obligations before 2030 under Paris climate accord?
    GLENN KESSLER | Washington Post
     
  2. Openmind

    Openmind Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 2011
    Messages:
    4,109
    Likes Received:
    118
    Location:
    Currently Belgium
    Sure, the greenhouse emissions were lower in 2015. . .but still much higher PER CAPITA than any other developed countries, even China and India (X8).

    Fact check: Do China, India have obligations before 2030 under Paris climate accord?
    GLENN KESSLER | Washington Post

    Fact Checker - The Washington Post
    www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/category/environment-issues/
     
  3. Old_Trapper70

    Old_Trapper70 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 17, 2014
    Messages:
    2,383
    Likes Received:
    340

    With you it wouldn't do any good. However, have you paid attention to the regulations of the EPA that Trump has eliminated especially in regards to how to get rid of coal slush?

    https://arstechnica.com/science/2017/03/trumps-executive-order-on-climate-change-finally-drops/

    http://www.environmentalintegrity.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/Enforcement-Report.pdf

    https://www.nrdc.org/experts/john-walke/trump-epa-abdicates-law-enforcement-gives-polluters-amnesty


    "The Trump EPA is reversing clean air enforcement positions against coal-burning power plants that EPA has taken and that federal courts have upheld not once, but twice. Moreover, the Trump administration promises EPA enforcement relief to all industrial polluters covered by a Clean Air Act program designed to ensure industries control their increases in harmful air pollution. These retreats, along with other reversals in EPA practices, reflect the Trump administration granting effective amnesty from legal requirements that protect Americans and uphold the Clean Air Act.

    All of these reckless steps are taken in a memorandum from EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt that EPA quietly released after hours on the same day that Pruitt appeared before a congressional oversight committee for the first time since taking office. He made no mention of the enforcement reversals or attacks on clean air safeguards during his testimony.

    In Pruitt’s memo, EPA effectively adopts the position of a coal-burning power plant defendant in a clean air enforcement case, DTE Energy, represented by the same law firm where the political head of EPA’s clean air office worked before the Senate confirmed him last month. Pruitt announces EPA will exercise its “enforcement discretion” not to enforce the Clean Air Act against not just power plants, but all industrial polluters, that fail to properly project how much they will increase harmful air pollution following construction projects. The Trump EPA is reversing course on enforcement stances that EPA is taking in lawsuits today, including in cases where federal courts have sided with EPA and against defendant positions that the Trump EPA now adopts."
     
  4. Old_Trapper70

    Old_Trapper70 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 17, 2014
    Messages:
    2,383
    Likes Received:
    340

    Sorry Rob, but again you miss the point, and act as if you are speaking to a bunch of idiots. Your "facts" are for the US alone w h i c h i s n o t w h a t w e a r e d i s c u s s i n g Do you understand the difference between global (Paris Accord), and local (United States)?
     
  5. Old_Trapper70

    Old_Trapper70 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 17, 2014
    Messages:
    2,383
    Likes Received:
    340

    Simple even for a simpleton to understand. The poorer countries cannot afford to clean up their environment, and thus the global community must help or their efforts will do no good. So the US is cleaner. Do you understand wind currents, and ocean currents?

    As for the projects of India, and China, while they may set certain goals to clean up their environments, the Paris Accord sets an agreement that they will continue to clean up.

    Maybe it is beyond your ability to understand that we live in a global community, and what affects one now affects all.

    Or maybe you just hate the idea that one of those billionaires may have to pay more.
     
  6. dogtowner

    dogtowner Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2009
    Messages:
    17,547
    Likes Received:
    1,429
    Location:
    Sec 9 Row J Seat 1 @ VCU home games
    Let us know when you are done moving the goalposts. Then go speak with your euro leaders and bother them since they don't seem to feel like doing their share.
     
  7. Old_Trapper70

    Old_Trapper70 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 17, 2014
    Messages:
    2,383
    Likes Received:
    340

    Well, it is certain your master, and god, will not do America's share. Hell, even China, and India, are doing more then Trump will.

    And we haven't "moved any goalposts". Just pointed out your usual ignorance, and *********.
     
  8. BigRob

    BigRob Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2007
    Messages:
    7,527
    Likes Received:
    351
    Location:
    USA
    The statement made by OpenMind was: "...the USA is the BIGGEST OFFENDER, and with the new Trump deregulations, they will continue to increase, instead of decreasing as every other country is doing.." (emphasis mine)

    I pointed out that according to the EPA we are lowering emissions in the United States, even in the absence of the Paris Agreement.

    As the other points raised - sure you can argue India and China have "commitments" before 2030 - but the bottom line is that under the Paris Agreement (which has no enforcement mechanism) they committed to meet goals they were already meeting - and in the case of India they want $2.5 trillion for it? Why?
     
  9. BigRob

    BigRob Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2007
    Messages:
    7,527
    Likes Received:
    351
    Location:
    USA
    If you truly want to see action taken on the climate, you should be outraged that major polluters are doing nothing more than asking to be paid to continue doing what they were already doing.

    It would be like going to a 5th grade classroom, handing out checks to the students for "committing" to go to school that day, and patting yourself on the back for your commitment to education. If you want to actually see something change you have to change the status quo - not lock it in place as part of a non-binding agreement.
     
  10. dogtowner

    dogtowner Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2009
    Messages:
    17,547
    Likes Received:
    1,429
    Location:
    Sec 9 Row J Seat 1 @ VCU home games
    Wonder what BOs percentage of freebies is ?
     
  11. Old_Trapper70

    Old_Trapper70 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 17, 2014
    Messages:
    2,383
    Likes Received:
    340
    How does that justify the US going back to the old days when pollution ruled? But you, and people like Dog, or Trump, do not want to see the pollution cleaned up. They want more mountain top removal, more streams polluted, more fish beds destroyed, more coral reefs dead.

    This is totally based on ignorance. Many of these countries do not even have running water, or electricity. The average wage is a dollar a day. The children who are lucky enough to have a school in their area study at night under kerosene lamps. Sometimes you have to do more then just set on your ass, and watch the world go to hell. You might even have to give up some of your comfort to help someone else.
     
  12. Old_Trapper70

    Old_Trapper70 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 17, 2014
    Messages:
    2,383
    Likes Received:
    340

    I wonder what kind of BO you have. If one uses your intellect as a guide it really stinks.
     
  13. The Scotsman

    The Scotsman Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2008
    Messages:
    2,928
    Likes Received:
    384
    Location:
    South of the Haggis Munching Line
    Interesting... I was just thinking that why would I want to give them money and aid to develope their economies and infrastructures so that they can create demand for more vehicles and fuel, more demand for electrical capacity and generators and more demand for goods and services? Then once they are merrily polluting their own environments we have to fund their adoption of green technologies and energy saving methods.... perhaps it would be kinder, cheaper and easier to keep them in the dark ages.... or...and here's a cool idea... we could just create a trading mechanism that offers to transfer their "pollution" and the social costs of producing a certain pollutant into the capital markets and pretend to use that as a governmental capital transference system so that it looks like their larger polluters are actually complying with their carbon footprint requirements and meeting their social responsibilies whilst actually doing bugger all about it...light blue touch paper stand well back......
     
  14. BigRob

    BigRob Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2007
    Messages:
    7,527
    Likes Received:
    351
    Location:
    USA
    And yet as cited the data from the EPA shows clearly that your assertion of "going back to the old days when pollution rules" is utter nonsense.

    So is this about climate change or is this supposed to be a social program to fight 3rd world poverty?
     
  15. dogtowner

    dogtowner Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2009
    Messages:
    17,547
    Likes Received:
    1,429
    Location:
    Sec 9 Row J Seat 1 @ VCU home games
    There is no making sense of the policy. They rely on blond obedience in the left.
     
Loading...

Share This Page

  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice