The Paris Agreement

#26
#26
BigOrangeTrain said:
Obama doesnt need any of that. He would just use an "executive order."
Click to expand...

Most likely Congress will have to approve the Agreement if there are any financial obligations placed on the US.

However, some "legal scholars" would claim that George Bush 1st, signed legislation approved by the Senate that gave approval for the President to negotiate and bind the country to this type of Agreement.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#31
#31
Its a turning point for the world (a world in chaos because of my inactions and political agenda)! Yes its me, me, me, and more me saving the world again!

If you don't believe that you must be a racist.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#33
#33
Gramps said:
Congress could undo part of his crap ( immigration) if they had the balls to do it.
Click to expand...

Yep. If Trump, Carson and maybe Cruz were to win, I think each would be in a pissing match with dems and establishment repubs. Would result in more exec orders.
 
#36
#36
McDad said:
I especially liked this section.

"Rich countries agreed to raise $100bn (£66bn) a year by 2020 to help poor countries transform their economies".

Those poor countries should be required to sell us their natural resources for the 100B.
Click to expand...

100B to these countries which will fund terrorists. Great!
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#37
#37
Gramps said:
You are aware Obama has signed less Executive Orders (per year average) than any president since Grover Cleveland.

Executive Orders
Click to expand...
He ain't done yet. I am guessing that his time grows shorter there will be a flurry of parting gifts to the American public. His pardons list is going to be something to behold as well.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#38
#38
hog88 said:
Senate still has to ratify doesn't it?
Click to expand...

It's not a "treaty" it's an "agreement" and none of it is binding.
Nearly 200 nations join together to fight climate change in historic Paris agreement - LA Times

"Neither the funding pledges nor the emissions goals set by countries are binding under international law."

It's a big show, PR, and you can bet many nations that agreed to it will treat it like Iran has done with it's "agreement" regarding Nuclear and missles.

Obama's administration will have a hard time getting $$ from Congress to live up to our portion of this "agreement."
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 people
#40
#40
37L1 said:
It's not a "treaty" it's an "agreement" and none of it is binding.
Nearly 200 nations join together to fight climate change in historic Paris agreement - LA Times

"Neither the funding pledges nor the emissions goals set by countries are binding under international law."

It's a big show, PR, and you can bet many nations that agreed to it will treat it like Iran has done with it's "agreement" regarding Nuclear and missles.

Obama's administration will have a hard time getting $$ from Congress to live up to our portion of this "agreement."
Click to expand...
It's like being an ally of the US. Most of it means nothing, just ask Georgia.
 
#42
#42
volfanhill said:
Interesting you champion this when everything I have read says most people on your side say this does jack ****. Not that I agree with either them or you.
Click to expand...
What are the “sides” here? Republicans vs. democrats? Hippies vs. rednecks? The farsighted vs. myopia?

I’m sure people of all colors can find something to complain about. There’s a saying that goes something like, “A good compromise leaves everyone unhappy”

In any case, I believe the specifics of the deal in terms of emissions targets are not as important as the message this sends to the private sector. The free market can solve global warming, but it needs to be properly incentivized. It needs perfect (or at least, good) information. This is a reason many fossil fuel companies support the Paris Agreement and even policies like carbon pricing. Businesses and investors need to know what the regulatory environment will be so they can properly plan for the future. Many are divesting from the dirtier fossil fuels already. They’ve been overvalued. You don’t want to be riding that bubble when it bursts…
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#43
#43
37L1 said:
It's not a "treaty" it's an "agreement" and none of it is binding.
Click to expand...
Not quite. Some aspects of the agreement are legally binding and some are not. Countries are required to have a target, they’re required to be transparent about their emissions and their progress toward said target, and they’re required to meet in regular intervals to assess global progress and adjust targets as needed.

True, it doesn’t have all the teeth of a proper treaty, but that’s a big reason this agreement has been more successful. It relies on peer pressure more so than legal enforcement. It’s better to use the carrot than the stick, as some of you have pointed out in the global warming thread.

Many countries wanted the entire deal to be legally binding, but everyone knows such a treaty would never make it through the only legislature in the world that continues to deny the problem even exists.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#44
#44
meanwhile, in China:

BEIJING-superJumbo-v3.jpg
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#45
#45
Empty promises and moral victories. But hey, great photo op!
 
#46
#46
MG1968 said:
meanwhile, in China:

BEIJING-superJumbo-v3.jpg
Click to expand...
I've been to Beijing several times. It sucks. You cannot breathe. When they figure out all the pollution THEY are adding, AND do something about it, I will feel bad about what I am doing. Until then... notsomuch.
 
#47
#47
MG1968 said:
meanwhile, in China:
Click to expand...
...and that's the reason they finally decided to partake in the Paris Agreement and clean up their economy. The Chinese people are fed up with the pollution. It's unsustainable.

Back here in the U.S., though, people want to eliminate environmental protection until our cities look just like that. And while China adopts a market-based scheme to reduce their pollution (invented in the U.S. under Ronald Reagan), America uses the kind of command-and-control regulation that one would expect out of communist China.

irony-everywhere.jpg
 
  • Like
Reactions: 4 people
#48
#48
BartW said:
Back here in the U.S., though, people want to eliminate environmental protection until our cities look just like that.
Click to expand...

That's some top notch fear mongering. Goebbels would be proud.
 
#49
#49
BartW said:
Back here in the U.S., though, people want to eliminate environmental protection until our cities look just like that.
Click to expand...

You've been telling us that China is leading the way, and yet their cities......

Oh, and here's some more foil for you. You have to be out by now.
 

Attachments

  • image.jpeg
    image.jpeg
    24.4 KB · Views: 87
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#50
#50
McDad said:
That's some top notch fear mongering. Goebbels would be proud.
Click to expand...

Oh, the climate change doomsdayers are precious. According to them the world should have ended twenty times over already.

I even will acknowledge that it is occurring. I'm nowhere near convinced that it's anywhere close to as catastrophic as the Chicken Littles are predicting, and am very wary of "solutions" that give the government even greater control over the economy.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top