The greatest nation on earth? Greatest at what? Major embarrassment?
No, more like major shame.
You know what I find to be shameful and embarrassed of? Of those that continue to post about this "hollow" agreement without having read it. If you truly cared about the environment and actually read the agreement, I would guess you are more likely to be outraged about its worthlessness not having value to the paper it was drawn on. Please be honest with yourself, read the agreement and tell me what good it does?
No need to be shameful of me, JC. I know what it says, I know it falls WAY short of what we need and I know why I am ashamed that we are the only nation that has not signed it.
I trust that you read the non-sense but I'll bet that most of those that post about the topic havent bothered. What Im saying is that the fervor over exiting the agreement is disproportionate to any actual good it can possibly do.
Correct me where Im wrong with regard to the agreement, I'll sum it up for those that didnt read it. It is a non-binding,
non-enforceable (wink and nod) agreement that relied on the "polluters"
(every nation!) to set their own rules, set their own benchmarks, set their own time frames to abide by their
own rules, and then to "police" themselves throughout the process and report the progress back to the Conference
of Parties, in order to achieve these:
(a)Holding the increase in the global average temperature to well below 2 °C above pre-industrial levels and to pursue efforts to limit the temperature increase to 1.5 °C above pre-industrial levels, recognizing that this would significantly reduce the risks and impacts of climate change;
(b)Increasing the ability to adapt to the adverse impacts of climate change and foster climate resilience and low greenhouse gas emissions development, in a manner that does not threaten food production;
(c)Making finance flows consistent with a pathway towards low greenhouse gas emissions and climate resilient development.
ya gotta start somewhere. you think exiting is no big deal? especially one of the biggest polluters on the globe? getting everyone to the table is the first stage of progress. but trump left the table entirely. because he believes coal is the future. SMFH
Yes, this is how I see it too. The agreement is a start, not an end-all. It is a way for every country to acknowledge the problem. And it can be strengthened. At this point, doing something is better than doing nothing or, as in the case of the U.S., going in the wrong direction all together.
It's all or nothing with some.....then they vote for Trump, which is of course worse than nothing, because any environmental progress made in the past 50 years is being reversed by this administration.
Then the Trump voter and supporter has the nerve to lecture us. It's nonsense and should be ignored.
The fact is these deniers don't give a crap about environmental issues till it's affecting them directly ....
The greatest nation on earth? Greatest at what? Major embarrassment?
No, more like major shame.
You know what I find to be shameful and embarrassed of? Of those that continue to post about this "hollow" agreement without having read it. If you truly cared about the environment and actually read the agreement, I would guess you are more likely to be outraged about its worthlessness not having value to the paper it was drawn on. Please be honest with yourself, read the agreement and tell me what good it does?
No need to be shameful of me, JC. I know what it says, I know it falls WAY short of what we need and I know why I am ashamed that we are the only nation that has not signed it.
I trust that you read the non-sense but I'll bet that most of those that post about the topic havent bothered. What Im saying is that the fervor over exiting the agreement is disproportionate to any actual good it can possibly do.
Correct me where Im wrong with regard to the agreement, I'll sum it up for those that didnt read it. It is a non-binding,
non-enforceable (wink and nod) agreement that relied on the "polluters"
(every nation!) to set their own rules, set their own benchmarks, set their own time frames to abide by their
own rules, and then to "police" themselves throughout the process and report the progress back to the Conference
of Parties, in order to achieve these:
(a)Holding the increase in the global average temperature to well below 2 °C above pre-industrial levels and to pursue efforts to limit the temperature increase to 1.5 °C above pre-industrial levels, recognizing that this would significantly reduce the risks and impacts of climate change;
(b)Increasing the ability to adapt to the adverse impacts of climate change and foster climate resilience and low greenhouse gas emissions development, in a manner that does not threaten food production;
(c)Making finance flows consistent with a pathway towards low greenhouse gas emissions and climate resilient development.
ya gotta start somewhere. you think exiting is no big deal? especially one of the biggest polluters on the globe? getting everyone to the table is the first stage of progress. but trump left the table entirely. because he believes coal is the future. SMFH
JC, are you asking how Kyoto worked out because you think it was a total failure? Do you know anything about it, really? You do know that the US refused to participate in that too, and that China and India were also excluded, and that is a huge reason why Kyoto didn't live up to what people hoped it would, right? And here we are again. The US refuses to get on board with something the entire world really needs it to get on board with. And once again the US just saying FUCK YOU ALL. And just so you know, Kyoto did help in many nations that were involved. At least half of them. In countries where it didn't work it was because those nations backed out to varying degrees, largely because they felt that it was useless without the US's (and China's and India's) participation. I think some lessons have been learned from that.... I.e. say fuck you right back to the US. That is why the world is starting to realize that they need to seriously consider just leaving the US behind now - time to move on without it. I think most have had quite enough of America's refusal to cooperate for the greater good.
From what I can tell from your post, you think of Kyoto as a reason why nobody should ever even bother trying again, lol.
Post edited by PJ_Soul on
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
JC, are you asking how Kyoto worked out because you think it was a total failure? Do you know anything about it, really? You do know that the US refused to participate in that too, and that China and India were also excluded, and that is a huge reason why Kyoto didn't live up to what people hoped it would, right? And here we are again. The US refuses to get on board with something the entire world really needs it to get on board with. And once again the US just saying FUCK YOU ALL. And just so you know, Kyoto did help in many nations that were involved. At least half of them. In countries where it didn't work it was because those nations backed out to varying degrees, largely because they felt that it was useless without the US's (and China's and India's) participation. I think some lessons have been learned from that.... I.e. say fuck you right back to the US. That is why the world is starting to realize that they need to seriously consider just leaving the US behind now - time to move on without it. I think most have had quite enough of America's refusal to cooperate for the greater good.
From what I can tell from your post, you think of Kyoto as a reason why nobody should ever even bother trying again, lol.
answers in order; NO Yes, but not everything Yes Finally, my response about Kyoto was about two others saying the paris agreement is a "start". I considered Kyoto being the start way back in 1992. Im simply asking "where are we now"? You seem to know some about Kyoto, if the paris agreement is a start, (global greenhouse gas emissions) where are we in 2030? In your opinion, with the Paris agreement in effect, is it likely or unlikely to have another global greenhouse gas emissions agreement/protocol by the year 2030? Anyway, IMO we only need to bring 5 countries to the table, China, US, India, Russia and Germany.
JC, are you asking how Kyoto worked out because you think it was a total failure? Do you know anything about it, really? You do know that the US refused to participate in that too, and that China and India were also excluded, and that is a huge reason why Kyoto didn't live up to what people hoped it would, right? And here we are again. The US refuses to get on board with something the entire world really needs it to get on board with. And once again the US just saying FUCK YOU ALL. And just so you know, Kyoto did help in many nations that were involved. At least half of them. In countries where it didn't work it was because those nations backed out to varying degrees, largely because they felt that it was useless without the US's (and China's and India's) participation. I think some lessons have been learned from that.... I.e. say fuck you right back to the US. That is why the world is starting to realize that they need to seriously consider just leaving the US behind now - time to move on without it. I think most have had quite enough of America's refusal to cooperate for the greater good.
From what I can tell from your post, you think of Kyoto as a reason why nobody should ever even bother trying again, lol.
answers in order; NO Yes, but not everything Yes Finally, my response about Kyoto was about two others saying the paris agreement is a "start". I considered Kyoto being the start way back in 1992. Im simply asking "where are we now"? You seem to know some about Kyoto, if the paris agreement is a start, (global greenhouse gas emissions) where are we in 2030? In your opinion, with the Paris agreement in effect, is it likely or unlikely to have another global greenhouse gas emissions agreement/protocol by the year 2030? Anyway, IMO we only need to bring 5 countries to the table, China, US, India, Russia and Germany.
That's pretty ridiculous. For a couple of reasons. I mean, obviously every country needs to be at the table. But also, you are against the Paris Agreement apparently, but think that the US has to be at the table? Huh?
And yeah, Kyoto was a start. The Paris Agreement is another jumping off point. I am not too surprised you got mired down by one word though.
Post edited by PJ_Soul on
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
JC, are you asking how Kyoto worked out because you think it was a total failure? Do you know anything about it, really? You do know that the US refused to participate in that too, and that China and India were also excluded, and that is a huge reason why Kyoto didn't live up to what people hoped it would, right? And here we are again. The US refuses to get on board with something the entire world really needs it to get on board with. And once again the US just saying FUCK YOU ALL. And just so you know, Kyoto did help in many nations that were involved. At least half of them. In countries where it didn't work it was because those nations backed out to varying degrees, largely because they felt that it was useless without the US's (and China's and India's) participation. I think some lessons have been learned from that.... I.e. say fuck you right back to the US. That is why the world is starting to realize that they need to seriously consider just leaving the US behind now - time to move on without it. I think most have had quite enough of America's refusal to cooperate for the greater good.
From what I can tell from your post, you think of Kyoto as a reason why nobody should ever even bother trying again, lol.
answers in order; NO Yes, but not everything Yes Finally, my response about Kyoto was about two others saying the paris agreement is a "start". I considered Kyoto being the start way back in 1992. Im simply asking "where are we now"? You seem to know some about Kyoto, if the paris agreement is a start, (global greenhouse gas emissions) where are we in 2030? In your opinion, with the Paris agreement in effect, is it likely or unlikely to have another global greenhouse gas emissions agreement/protocol by the year 2030? Anyway, IMO we only need to bring 5 countries to the table, China, US, India, Russia and Germany.
That's pretty ridiculous. For a couple of reasons. I mean, obviously every country needs to be at the table. But also, you are against the Paris Agreement apparently, but think that the US has to be at the table? Huh?
Its a sham. If you told me the paris agreement is an enforceable mechanism for polluter nations to pay less polluting nations for global pollution than I wouldn't have a problem with it. Sometimes my opinions are ridiculous but I have to "start somewhere" Anyway in regards to the five most polluting nations, if I use your reasoning with respect to countries that dropped out of Kyoto (because exclusion of Us China and India), couldn't I argue that those 5 countries will force other countries to act as well?
JC, are you asking how Kyoto worked out because you think it was a total failure? Do you know anything about it, really? You do know that the US refused to participate in that too, and that China and India were also excluded, and that is a huge reason why Kyoto didn't live up to what people hoped it would, right? And here we are again. The US refuses to get on board with something the entire world really needs it to get on board with. And once again the US just saying FUCK YOU ALL. And just so you know, Kyoto did help in many nations that were involved. At least half of them. In countries where it didn't work it was because those nations backed out to varying degrees, largely because they felt that it was useless without the US's (and China's and India's) participation. I think some lessons have been learned from that.... I.e. say fuck you right back to the US. That is why the world is starting to realize that they need to seriously consider just leaving the US behind now - time to move on without it. I think most have had quite enough of America's refusal to cooperate for the greater good.
From what I can tell from your post, you think of Kyoto as a reason why nobody should ever even bother trying again, lol.
answers in order; NO Yes, but not everything Yes Finally, my response about Kyoto was about two others saying the paris agreement is a "start". I considered Kyoto being the start way back in 1992. Im simply asking "where are we now"? You seem to know some about Kyoto, if the paris agreement is a start, (global greenhouse gas emissions) where are we in 2030? In your opinion, with the Paris agreement in effect, is it likely or unlikely to have another global greenhouse gas emissions agreement/protocol by the year 2030? Anyway, IMO we only need to bring 5 countries to the table, China, US, India, Russia and Germany.
That's pretty ridiculous. For a couple of reasons. I mean, obviously every country needs to be at the table. But also, you are against the Paris Agreement apparently, but think that the US has to be at the table? Huh?
Its a sham. If you told me the paris agreement is an enforceable mechanism for polluter nations to pay less polluting nations for global pollution than I wouldn't have a problem with it. Sometimes my opinions are ridiculous but I have to "start somewhere" Anyway in regards to the five most polluting nations, if I use your reasoning with respect to countries that dropped out of Kyoto (because exclusion of Us China and India), couldn't I argue that those 5 countries will force other countries to act as well?
No other countries need to be forced, lol. Literally the entire world is willing (including China and India). Only the US is out, and I think Syria. That's it. 2 countries out of 195 won't do it. FYI, China and India weren't included in the Kyoto Protocol because developing nations were necessarily excluded, and China and India were considered to be developing nations at the time. The Paris Agreement isn't a sham. You seem to think that it has to be an authoritarian Agreement, lol. It is a collaborative agreement - something that aims to get everyone on the same page, to find an amicable way to cooperate and work together for the greater good, to share goals, etc. For some reason, that is offensive to you.
Post edited by PJ_Soul on
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
JC, are you asking how Kyoto worked out because you think it was a total failure? Do you know anything about it, really? You do know that the US refused to participate in that too, and that China and India were also excluded, and that is a huge reason why Kyoto didn't live up to what people hoped it would, right? And here we are again. The US refuses to get on board with something the entire world really needs it to get on board with. And once again the US just saying FUCK YOU ALL. And just so you know, Kyoto did help in many nations that were involved. At least half of them. In countries where it didn't work it was because those nations backed out to varying degrees, largely because they felt that it was useless without the US's (and China's and India's) participation. I think some lessons have been learned from that.... I.e. say fuck you right back to the US. That is why the world is starting to realize that they need to seriously consider just leaving the US behind now - time to move on without it. I think most have had quite enough of America's refusal to cooperate for the greater good.
From what I can tell from your post, you think of Kyoto as a reason why nobody should ever even bother trying again, lol.
answers in order; NO Yes, but not everything Yes Finally, my response about Kyoto was about two others saying the paris agreement is a "start". I considered Kyoto being the start way back in 1992. Im simply asking "where are we now"? You seem to know some about Kyoto, if the paris agreement is a start, (global greenhouse gas emissions) where are we in 2030? In your opinion, with the Paris agreement in effect, is it likely or unlikely to have another global greenhouse gas emissions agreement/protocol by the year 2030? Anyway, IMO we only need to bring 5 countries to the table, China, US, India, Russia and Germany.
That's pretty ridiculous. For a couple of reasons. I mean, obviously every country needs to be at the table. But also, you are against the Paris Agreement apparently, but think that the US has to be at the table? Huh?
Its a sham. If you told me the paris agreement is an enforceable mechanism for polluter nations to pay less polluting nations for global pollution than I wouldn't have a problem with it. Sometimes my opinions are ridiculous but I have to "start somewhere" Anyway in regards to the five most polluting nations, if I use your reasoning with respect to countries that dropped out of Kyoto (because exclusion of Us China and India), couldn't I argue that those 5 countries will force other countries to act as well?
No other countries need to be forced, lol. Literally the entire world is willing (including China and India). Only the US is out, and I think Syria. That's it. 2 countries out of 195 won't do it. FYI, China and India weren't included in the Kyoto Protocol because developing nations were necessarily excluded, and China and India were considered to be developing nations at the time. The Paris Agreement isn't a sham. You seem to think that it has to be an authoritarian Agreement, lol. It is a collaborative agreement - something that aims to get everyone on the same page, to find an amicable way to cooperate and work together for the greater good, to share goals, etc. For some reason, that is offensive to you.
Offensive? Im looking for something with teeth, something binding and enforceable, you prefer the farce. My fear is that this do-nothing agreement is an excuse for the polluters to do nothing for the next 10 to 13 years. Again the outrage is disproportionate to anything good that could ever come of the Paris agreement and Im thinking it has more to do with outrage over Trump. I'm not sure if Trump is a straight climate change denier or if he is one that thinks man has nothing to do with climate change (naturally occurring), whatever he is, whatever you are or I am has nothing to do what the Paris agreement is, a total sham, it does nothing for climate change. Hopefully with this start in 10 years I will be proven wrong.
JC, are you asking how Kyoto worked out because you think it was a total failure? Do you know anything about it, really? You do know that the US refused to participate in that too, and that China and India were also excluded, and that is a huge reason why Kyoto didn't live up to what people hoped it would, right? And here we are again. The US refuses to get on board with something the entire world really needs it to get on board with. And once again the US just saying FUCK YOU ALL. And just so you know, Kyoto did help in many nations that were involved. At least half of them. In countries where it didn't work it was because those nations backed out to varying degrees, largely because they felt that it was useless without the US's (and China's and India's) participation. I think some lessons have been learned from that.... I.e. say fuck you right back to the US. That is why the world is starting to realize that they need to seriously consider just leaving the US behind now - time to move on without it. I think most have had quite enough of America's refusal to cooperate for the greater good.
From what I can tell from your post, you think of Kyoto as a reason why nobody should ever even bother trying again, lol.
answers in order; NO Yes, but not everything Yes Finally, my response about Kyoto was about two others saying the paris agreement is a "start". I considered Kyoto being the start way back in 1992. Im simply asking "where are we now"? You seem to know some about Kyoto, if the paris agreement is a start, (global greenhouse gas emissions) where are we in 2030? In your opinion, with the Paris agreement in effect, is it likely or unlikely to have another global greenhouse gas emissions agreement/protocol by the year 2030? Anyway, IMO we only need to bring 5 countries to the table, China, US, India, Russia and Germany.
That's pretty ridiculous. For a couple of reasons. I mean, obviously every country needs to be at the table. But also, you are against the Paris Agreement apparently, but think that the US has to be at the table? Huh?
Its a sham. If you told me the paris agreement is an enforceable mechanism for polluter nations to pay less polluting nations for global pollution than I wouldn't have a problem with it. Sometimes my opinions are ridiculous but I have to "start somewhere" Anyway in regards to the five most polluting nations, if I use your reasoning with respect to countries that dropped out of Kyoto (because exclusion of Us China and India), couldn't I argue that those 5 countries will force other countries to act as well?
No other countries need to be forced, lol. Literally the entire world is willing (including China and India). Only the US is out, and I think Syria. That's it. 2 countries out of 195 won't do it. FYI, China and India weren't included in the Kyoto Protocol because developing nations were necessarily excluded, and China and India were considered to be developing nations at the time. The Paris Agreement isn't a sham. You seem to think that it has to be an authoritarian Agreement, lol. It is a collaborative agreement - something that aims to get everyone on the same page, to find an amicable way to cooperate and work together for the greater good, to share goals, etc. For some reason, that is offensive to you.
Offensive? Im looking for something with teeth, something binding and enforceable, you prefer the farce. My fear is that this do-nothing agreement is an excuse for the polluters to do nothing for the next 10 to 13 years. Again the outrage is disproportionate to anything good that could ever come of the Paris agreement and Im thinking it has more to do with outrage over Trump. I'm not sure if Trump is a straight climate change denier or if he is one that thinks man has nothing to do with climate change (naturally occurring), whatever he is, whatever you are or I am has nothing to do what the Paris agreement is, a total sham, it does nothing for climate change. Hopefully with this start in 10 years I will be proven wrong.
JC, are you asking how Kyoto worked out because you think it was a total failure? Do you know anything about it, really? You do know that the US refused to participate in that too, and that China and India were also excluded, and that is a huge reason why Kyoto didn't live up to what people hoped it would, right? And here we are again. The US refuses to get on board with something the entire world really needs it to get on board with. And once again the US just saying FUCK YOU ALL. And just so you know, Kyoto did help in many nations that were involved. At least half of them. In countries where it didn't work it was because those nations backed out to varying degrees, largely because they felt that it was useless without the US's (and China's and India's) participation. I think some lessons have been learned from that.... I.e. say fuck you right back to the US. That is why the world is starting to realize that they need to seriously consider just leaving the US behind now - time to move on without it. I think most have had quite enough of America's refusal to cooperate for the greater good.
From what I can tell from your post, you think of Kyoto as a reason why nobody should ever even bother trying again, lol.
answers in order; NO Yes, but not everything Yes Finally, my response about Kyoto was about two others saying the paris agreement is a "start". I considered Kyoto being the start way back in 1992. Im simply asking "where are we now"? You seem to know some about Kyoto, if the paris agreement is a start, (global greenhouse gas emissions) where are we in 2030? In your opinion, with the Paris agreement in effect, is it likely or unlikely to have another global greenhouse gas emissions agreement/protocol by the year 2030? Anyway, IMO we only need to bring 5 countries to the table, China, US, India, Russia and Germany.
That's pretty ridiculous. For a couple of reasons. I mean, obviously every country needs to be at the table. But also, you are against the Paris Agreement apparently, but think that the US has to be at the table? Huh?
Its a sham. If you told me the paris agreement is an enforceable mechanism for polluter nations to pay less polluting nations for global pollution than I wouldn't have a problem with it. Sometimes my opinions are ridiculous but I have to "start somewhere" Anyway in regards to the five most polluting nations, if I use your reasoning with respect to countries that dropped out of Kyoto (because exclusion of Us China and India), couldn't I argue that those 5 countries will force other countries to act as well?
No other countries need to be forced, lol. Literally the entire world is willing (including China and India). Only the US is out, and I think Syria. That's it. 2 countries out of 195 won't do it. FYI, China and India weren't included in the Kyoto Protocol because developing nations were necessarily excluded, and China and India were considered to be developing nations at the time. The Paris Agreement isn't a sham. You seem to think that it has to be an authoritarian Agreement, lol. It is a collaborative agreement - something that aims to get everyone on the same page, to find an amicable way to cooperate and work together for the greater good, to share goals, etc. For some reason, that is offensive to you.
Offensive? Im looking for something with teeth, something binding and enforceable, you prefer the farce. My fear is that this do-nothing agreement is an excuse for the polluters to do nothing for the next 10 to 13 years. Again the outrage is disproportionate to anything good that could ever come of the Paris agreement and Im thinking it has more to do with outrage over Trump. I'm not sure if Trump is a straight climate change denier or if he is one that thinks man has nothing to do with climate change (naturally occurring), whatever he is, whatever you are or I am has nothing to do what the Paris agreement is, a total sham, it does nothing for climate change. Hopefully with this start in 10 years I will be proven wrong.
And how in the hell do you suggest the international community enforce such a thing? There aren't any global laws that can force every country on the planet to do what you claim to have in mind. So you basically want the impossible to be done so that nothing can be done. Gee, how fucking helpful. Also, if it actually were possible and they did that, I have no doubt that you'd be mad about that too.
Post edited by PJ_Soul on
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
I think you can get a lot more doing by showing people what is best for our world that just making a bunch of rules and tacking them up on a wall. Rather than a list of rules, the Paris agreement is movement that creates more general awareness of the global warming situation and, using that as an influence, provides the opportunity to encourage and increase the kind of actions we need to take before we toast the planet. We need whatever catalyst we can find to get things rolling.
Besides, it beats sitting around watching what dumb thing DT will say next (yawwwwn to all that nonsense.)
“The fear of death follows from the fear of life. A man [or woman] who lives fully is prepared to die at any time.”
JC, are you asking how Kyoto worked out because you think it was a total failure? Do you know anything about it, really? You do know that the US refused to participate in that too, and that China and India were also excluded, and that is a huge reason why Kyoto didn't live up to what people hoped it would, right? And here we are again. The US refuses to get on board with something the entire world really needs it to get on board with. And once again the US just saying FUCK YOU ALL. And just so you know, Kyoto did help in many nations that were involved. At least half of them. In countries where it didn't work it was because those nations backed out to varying degrees, largely because they felt that it was useless without the US's (and China's and India's) participation. I think some lessons have been learned from that.... I.e. say fuck you right back to the US. That is why the world is starting to realize that they need to seriously consider just leaving the US behind now - time to move on without it. I think most have had quite enough of America's refusal to cooperate for the greater good.
From what I can tell from your post, you think of Kyoto as a reason why nobody should ever even bother trying again, lol.
answers in order; NO Yes, but not everything Yes Finally, my response about Kyoto was about two others saying the paris agreement is a "start". I considered Kyoto being the start way back in 1992. Im simply asking "where are we now"? You seem to know some about Kyoto, if the paris agreement is a start, (global greenhouse gas emissions) where are we in 2030? In your opinion, with the Paris agreement in effect, is it likely or unlikely to have another global greenhouse gas emissions agreement/protocol by the year 2030? Anyway, IMO we only need to bring 5 countries to the table, China, US, India, Russia and Germany.
That's pretty ridiculous. For a couple of reasons. I mean, obviously every country needs to be at the table. But also, you are against the Paris Agreement apparently, but think that the US has to be at the table? Huh?
Its a sham. If you told me the paris agreement is an enforceable mechanism for polluter nations to pay less polluting nations for global pollution than I wouldn't have a problem with it. Sometimes my opinions are ridiculous but I have to "start somewhere" Anyway in regards to the five most polluting nations, if I use your reasoning with respect to countries that dropped out of Kyoto (because exclusion of Us China and India), couldn't I argue that those 5 countries will force other countries to act as well?
No other countries need to be forced, lol. Literally the entire world is willing (including China and India). Only the US is out, and I think Syria. That's it. 2 countries out of 195 won't do it. FYI, China and India weren't included in the Kyoto Protocol because developing nations were necessarily excluded, and China and India were considered to be developing nations at the time. The Paris Agreement isn't a sham. You seem to think that it has to be an authoritarian Agreement, lol. It is a collaborative agreement - something that aims to get everyone on the same page, to find an amicable way to cooperate and work together for the greater good, to share goals, etc. For some reason, that is offensive to you.
Offensive? Im looking for something with teeth, something binding and enforceable, you prefer the farce. My fear is that this do-nothing agreement is an excuse for the polluters to do nothing for the next 10 to 13 years. Again the outrage is disproportionate to anything good that could ever come of the Paris agreement and Im thinking it has more to do with outrage over Trump. I'm not sure if Trump is a straight climate change denier or if he is one that thinks man has nothing to do with climate change (naturally occurring), whatever he is, whatever you are or I am has nothing to do what the Paris agreement is, a total sham, it does nothing for climate change. Hopefully with this start in 10 years I will be proven wrong.
And how in the hell do you suggest the international community enforce such a thing? There aren't any global laws that can force every country on the planet to do what you claim to have in mind. So you basically want the impossible to be done so that nothing can be done. Gee, how fucking helpful. Also, if it actually were possible and they did that, I have no doubt that you'd be mad about that too.
this is just it. it's not like the UN has any real power.
"French President Emmanuel Macron will award U.S. climate scientists with grants to conduct research in France for the remainder of President Trump’s current presidential term.
The “Make Our Planet Great Again” grants, totaling about $70 million, will be given to about 50 climate research projects, ABC News reported."
That should piss of Trump and his anti-science swamp.
"I'll use the magic word - let's just shut the fuck up, please." EV, 04/13/08
Comments
http://unfccc.int/kyoto_protocol/items/2830.php
how has that worked out?
I think some lessons have been learned from that.... I.e. say fuck you right back to the US. That is why the world is starting to realize that they need to seriously consider just leaving the US behind now - time to move on without it. I think most have had quite enough of America's refusal to cooperate for the greater good.
From what I can tell from your post, you think of Kyoto as a reason why nobody should ever even bother trying again, lol.
www.headstonesband.com
answers in order;
NO
Yes, but not everything
Yes
Finally, my response about Kyoto was about two others saying the paris agreement is a "start". I considered Kyoto being the start way back in 1992. Im simply asking "where are we now"?
You seem to know some about Kyoto, if the paris agreement is a start, (global greenhouse gas emissions) where are we in 2030? In your opinion, with the Paris agreement in effect, is it likely or unlikely to have another global greenhouse gas emissions agreement/protocol by the year 2030?
Anyway, IMO we only need to bring 5 countries to the table, China, US, India, Russia and Germany.
And yeah, Kyoto was a start. The Paris Agreement is another jumping off point. I am not too surprised you got mired down by one word though.
Sometimes my opinions are ridiculous but I have to "start somewhere"
Anyway in regards to the five most polluting nations, if I use your reasoning with respect to countries that dropped out of Kyoto (because exclusion of Us China and India), couldn't I argue that those 5 countries will force other countries to act as well?
FYI, China and India weren't included in the Kyoto Protocol because developing nations were necessarily excluded, and China and India were considered to be developing nations at the time.
The Paris Agreement isn't a sham. You seem to think that it has to be an authoritarian Agreement, lol. It is a collaborative agreement - something that aims to get everyone on the same page, to find an amicable way to cooperate and work together for the greater good, to share goals, etc. For some reason, that is offensive to you.
www.headstonesband.com
My fear is that this do-nothing agreement is an excuse for the polluters to do nothing for the next 10 to 13 years.
Again the outrage is disproportionate to anything good that could ever come of the Paris agreement and Im thinking it has more to do with outrage over Trump.
I'm not sure if Trump is a straight climate change denier or if he is one that thinks man has nothing to do with climate change (naturally occurring), whatever he is, whatever you are or I am has nothing to do what the Paris agreement is, a total sham, it does nothing for climate change. Hopefully with this start in 10 years I will be proven wrong.
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
Besides, it beats sitting around watching what dumb thing DT will say next (yawwwwn to all that nonsense.)
www.headstonesband.com
Macron to award US climate scientists ‘Make Our Planet Great Again’ grants
"French President Emmanuel Macron will award U.S. climate scientists with grants to conduct research in France for the remainder of President Trump’s current presidential term.The “Make Our Planet Great Again” grants, totaling about $70 million, will be given to about 50 climate research projects, ABC News reported."
That should piss of Trump and his anti-science swamp.