Paris

The Good News:

1) The current climate accord already signed by the U.S. does not expire until Fall 2019, so at most there would only be a one year gap in programs already in place to mitigate global warming.

2) Mayors of many major U.S. cities, including some in Texas (a red state), have already agreed to continue energy policies designed to comply with our current commitments on mitigating global warming.

3) Bloomberg media has pledged substantial financial support to international signatories to offset the loss of U.S. financial committment to the existing global warming mitigation program.

The Better News:

Articles of impeachment are being drafted and will possibly rid us all of this roadblock to energy policies that make sense. So far the strongest charge on the list is obstruction of justice by attempting to derail an investigation into his administration's collusion with a hostile foreign power amounting to treason against the government of the United States.

The only question that really remains is how to leverage this charge for maximum GOP benefit to be derived by distancing themselves and their politics from those of Donald Trump. I encourage them all to take full advantage, but of course I am a democrat.

Comey evidently will testify this week against Trump on these charges. Trump has said he wants Comey to be "honest", but as we all know, Trump seems to be challenged in terms of that particular word.

The man (Trump) wouldn't know honesty if it put on jack boots and kicked his worthless behind all the way down PA avenue. And it looks as though it might go down just like that. Of all the bad presidents of any political persuasion that have been impeached, he wins hands down as the one who most richly deserves it, in every sense of the word. Impeachment does not necessarily mean removal from office, but this president is at least deserving of the sternest possible warning that he is not totally in charge. He was not elected a king, or a supreme totalitarian dictator.

One of the things that once made America great was what the greatest generation of Americans did in WWII for the benefit of its own citizens and the rest of the world. What Trump has put at risk just outside of his first 100 days in office is the perception of the rest of the world that America will ever be great while he is in charge. Collusion of his administration with the likes of Vladimir Putin only makes it worse.
 
Last edited:
exchemist said:
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?
Click to expand...

So, no offers, then, Sculptor? Pity, I was hoping for a reasoned summary of why Trump's decision is in fact sound, once one considers what is really in the Paris accord - which none of these damn' commie liberal pinkoes on the left coast have bothered to do. :D
 
exchemist said:
So, no offers, then, Sculptor? Pity, I was hoping for a reasoned summary of why Trump's decision is in fact sound, once one considers what is really in the Paris accord - which none of these damn' commie liberal pinkoes on the left coast have bothered to do. :D
Click to expand...

Sorry--I dropped the thread---beloved spouse drug me along on a kayak trip---get the old truck running, clean and load the kayaks, meet the rest of the party at 6:am, then launch and paddle-----------------this old body does not enjoy sitting hours in a kayak, nor that much sunshine.
Put me "off my pegs" for awhile.

Summing up:
I read the "accord" (didn't re-read the other accords/agreements mentioned therein), read wiki's take on the accord, then read Trumps speech.
It seems that wiki, trump, and I may not be referring to the same document.

Near as I can figure it, What Trump did was a rather hollow gesture that has more to do with geopolitics than with climate.
He could have passed the ball to the senate which could call it a treaty and refuse to ratify.
He could have done nothing, as there did not seem to be any binding mandates within the "accord"
He could have done what he did which seemed much more as a continuation of a campaign promise with an "up yours" geopolitical gesture tossed in for good measure.

If you were hoping that I had an answer for you, I suspect you will be disappointing as I only have guesses and more questions.
 
Last edited:
sculptor said:
Sorry--I dropped the thread---beloved spouse drug me along on a kayak trip---get the old truck running, clean and load the kayaks, meet the rest of the party at 6:am, then launch and paddle-----------------this old body does not enjoy sitting hours in a kayak, nor that much sunshine.
Put me "off my pegs" for awhile.

Summing up:
I read the "accord" (didn't re-read the other accords/agreements mentioned therein), read wiki's take on the accord, then read Trumps speech.
It seems that wiki, trump, and I may not be referring to the same document.

Near as I can figure it, What Trump did was a rather hollow gesture that has more to do with geopolitics than with climate.
He could have passed the ball to the senate which could call it a treaty and refuse to ratify.
He could have done nothing, as there did not seem to be any binding mandates within the "accord"
He could have done what he did which seemed much more as a continuation of a campaign promise with an "up yours" geopolitical gesture tossed in for good measure.

If you were hoping that I had an answer for you, I suspect you will be disappointing as I only have guesses and more questions.
Click to expand...
Well that's about the size of it, I agree. So perhaps we can now also agree we have no evidence that there is anything in the detail of the accord that would provide a rationale for Trump's action. Yet you were blaming people for reacting against his decision without having read the accord through, as if that would be where the explanation lay. So that's rot, basically.

Trump claims the accord is somehow biased against the USA, yet reneging on it won't create any jobs in the USA, won't boost the US economy, or have any other benefit, apart from saving (but only after 2020, by which time he'll be on his way out) the sums of money earmarked by the accord for helping poor countries choose a green energy path.

So I think you are quite right: it was, as everyone has been saying, an empty domestic political gesture, without any economic, social or scientific rationale.
 
exchemist said:
Trump claims the accord is somehow biased against the USA, yet reneging on it won't create any jobs in the USA, won't boost the US economy, or have any other benefit, apart from saving (but only after 2020, by which time he'll be on his way out) the sums of money earmarked by the accord for helping poor countries choose a green energy path.
Click to expand...
And has made a lot of business leaders in the US pretty upset. And has encouraged India and China to take the lead in renewables development.

See if anyone can identify this disgruntled business leader:

"If we fail to act now, it is scientifically irrefutable that there will be catastrophic and irreversible consequences for humanity and our planet. We urge you, our government, to strengthen and pass United States legislation, and lead the world by example. We support your effort to ensure meaningful and effective measures to control climate change, an immediate challenge facing the United States and the world today."
 
billvon said:
And has made a lot of business leaders in the US pretty upset. And has encouraged India and China to take the lead in renewables development.

See if anyone can identify this disgruntled business leader:

"If we fail to act now, it is scientifically irrefutable that there will be catastrophic and irreversible consequences for humanity and our planet. We urge you, our government, to strengthen and pass United States legislation, and lead the world by example. We support your effort to ensure meaningful and effective measures to control climate change, an immediate challenge facing the United States and the world today."
Click to expand...

Er, D. Trump, et. al.?

2009 ad in NY Times?
 
origin said:
I do not believe at this point that anything Mr. Trump could do or say would surprise me.
Click to expand...
Trump lives in a truth free world. The truth is whatever he says it is. People shouldn't believe anything he says.
 
Is this further evidence he may have dementia or just that he has refined truth free expedience to another degree?
 
geordief said:
Is this further evidence he may have dementia or just that he has refined truth free expedience to another degree?
Click to expand...
By all appearances his employment of language now is what it has always been. To focus on the content is to miss the point - he's not communicating content.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top