Paris

sculptor said:
as/re china and eu
for a "leaked joint statement:
http://www.climatechangenews.com/2017/06/01/leaked-eu-china-climate-statement-full/
....................
meanwhile, China is the world's biggest oil importer
116.2 billion dollars = (17.3% of total global crude oil imports)
(down from the 2012 high of $220.8 bln)
Perhaps, a connection exists therein?
Click to expand...
I am sure there may be. They also suffer appalling pollution. And they make a hell of a lot of solar cells. So maybe they have put two and two together and realised it can be good business to get off reliance on fossil fuels as well as good domestic and international politics. And since they are, or are soon to be, the biggest and most energy-hungry economy on the planet, that has to be a good thing for us all.
 
sculptor said:
So, Merkel said: "Europe must be ready to look after itself".

duh
Click to expand...
It can be locked two ways . politically and environmental . Does the USA emits per capita per square mile less than Europe , so I would agree let Europe take care itself .
Politically United Europe have a larger population than the USA, so they them contribute more funds than
the USA. We should not sent our men and have base in Europe , were our men spent our dollars without much benefit for us.
 
Without much benefit? How much trade would the US lose if Europe were invaded again?

Here, let me find that for you:
Exports to Europe, per year, 2016, approx. 270 Billion
Imports: 416 Billion
 
California, the largest state in terms of GDP, announced it will pursue implementing the Paris Accord independently. I expect it won't be the last state to do so. I expect other prosperous states will follow. And in matters like this the big states lead and the little states follow. States like Kansas, Nebraska. Montana, are ill prepared to act independently on something like this. There really isn't much heavy industry in those states. They just don't have the economic might to do so.
 
Last edited:
sculptor said:
smog
and the left cost
Click to expand...
California was rightwing until they actually had the experience of Reagan government - just as it was rightwing in the years leading to the Great Depression, and then voted more centrist until the memory wore off.

Unlike Texas, they had no need - psychologically - to justify slavery, and once the gold ran out not enough mineral wealth to afflict them with the "oil curse" (that's when the Buried Treasure Fairy puts a spell on the governing officials that prevents them from thinking clearly). So they were capable of learning.

The splitter in the US looks like water.
 
And:
The really entertaining thing about the responses to Trump's decision is:
99.99% of the reactionaries have, most likely, not read the complete text of the Paris accord, nor the referenced documents mentioned therein.

So.
When does this cease being about climate and become a discussion about psychology?
 
joepistole said:
California, the largest state in terms of GDP, announced it will pursue implementing the Paris Accord independently. I expect it won't be the last state to do so. I expect other prosperous states will follow. And in matters like this the big states lead and the little states follow. States like Kansas, Nebraska. Montana, are ill prepared to act independently on something like this. There really isn't much heavy industry in those states. They just don't have the economic might to do so.
Click to expand...
Exactly. This has been the story with environmental advances in the USA for years. The federal government does not really control the direction of travel. (This became apparent to me when I worked in the oil industry in Houston.)

The other thing about all this is that Trump won't succeed in resurrecting the moribund coal industry by this. The US is awash in gas anyway, nowadays. There will be practically zero net jobs created by this.

So, one way and another, this is a fairly empty and impotent gesture by Trump - except for one thing, which is the cutting off of the funding from the US to developing countries to encourage them to choose a low carbon path. That is a great pity.
 
exchemist said:
Exactly. This has been the story with environmental advances in the USA for years. The federal government does not really control the direction of travel. (This became apparent to me when I worked in the oil industry in Houston.)

The other thing about all this is that Trump won't succeed in resurrecting the moribund coal industry by this. The US is awash in gas anyway, nowadays. There will be practically zero net jobs created by this.

So, one way and another, this is a fairly empty and impotent gesture by Trump - except for one thing, which is the cutting off of the funding from the US to developing countries to encourage them to choose a low carbon path. That is a great pity.
Click to expand...
You hit the nail on the head. This is a show for about 50,000 coal miners who elected Trump.
 
sculptor said:
And:
The really entertaining thing about the responses to Trump's decision is:
99.99% of the reactionaries have, most likely, not read the complete text of the Paris accord, nor the referenced documents mentioned therein.

So.
When does this cease being about climate and become a discussion about psychology?
Click to expand...
You think I need to have read the treaties of Rome and Maastricht, to form an opinion about membership of the EU?

Don't be absurd.
 
exchemist said:
You think I need to have read the treaties of Rome and Maastricht, to form an opinion about membership of the EU?

Don't be absurd.
Click to expand...

OK
If
you do not know the text of the accord.
Then
why do you care what Trump does with the "accord"?

...........................
It seems that one could well position one'self via knowledge or faith.
Absent knowledge do we assume faith? Or is there a third path?
 
sculptor said:
OK
If
you do not know the text of the accord.
Then
why do you care what Trump does with the "accord"?

...........................
It seems that one could well position one'self via knowledge or faith.
Absent knowledge do we assume faith? Or is there a third path?
Click to expand...
You seem never to have heard of newspapers or the internet.
 
sculptor said:
LOL
Click to expand...
Well, we do know quite a bit about what the Paris accord contains. Though perhaps not all, admittedly. If there is some aspect of it that everyone but Trump is overlooking, but which perfectly explains his stance, what is it? What clause does he find objectionable in particular?

Let's by all means focus in on that and try to see where he is coming from and understand why he is in fact being reasonable. Any offers?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top