The Paris Agreement

#76
#76
mrorange211 said:
I bike to work, and recently took advantage of the 30% tax credit to have 4 solar panels installed while I have reserved my Tesla Powerwall as well. I guess that makes me someone that practices what they preach? Sorry to disappoint you.
Click to expand...

I'm delighted you are a true believer. Certainly gives you more credibility in my eyes. Respect to you.

You are still incredibly wrong in predicting CC will kill us all.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#77
#77
mrorange211 said:
I bike to work, and recently took advantage of the 30% tax credit to have 4 solar panels installed while I have reserved my Tesla Powerwall as well. I guess that makes me someone that practices what they preach? Sorry to disappoint you.
Click to expand...
Are you going to get 100% of your power from solar cells? If not, it is a coal burner. How much carbon was emitted in the production of said solar cells? You gonna store extra power? How about toxic waste created from battery disposal?
 
#80
#80
mrorange211 said:
I bike to work, and recently took advantage of the 30% tax credit to have 4 solar panels installed while I have reserved my Tesla Powerwall as well. I guess that makes me someone that practices what they preach? Sorry to disappoint you.
Click to expand...

I thought about buying a Tesla but no one really seems to want to talk about your electricity bill. I can't imagine the savings in not using gas cover that.

The Tesla Wall is interesting though. Half of my roof is covered in solar panels to heat my pool, probably could swing a few electricity producing ones up there without the neighbors losing their shizzle.
 
#81
#81
FLVOL_79 said:
I thought about buying a Tesla but no one really seems to want to talk about your electricity bill. I can't imagine the savings in not using gas cover that.

The Tesla Wall is interesting though. Half of my roof is covered in solar panels to heat my pool, probably could swing a few electricity producing ones up there without the neighbors losing their shizzle.
Click to expand...

That's why you gotta go with Solar. If you charge the car from an outlet, you are not really offsetting pollution.
 
#83
#83
mrorange211 said:
I bike to work, and recently took advantage of the 30% tax credit to have 4 solar panels installed while I have reserved my Tesla Powerwall as well. I guess that makes me someone that practices what they preach? Sorry to disappoint you.
Click to expand...

If the government was serious about CC this is where the money would be spent, not on failed donor companies.
 
#84
#84
Most people would hop on board with limiting fossil fuels if there was a viable energy alternative that wouldn't force people to change their lives drastically to use it. Unfortunately there isn't a viable option. Maybe if we can get a Mr.Fusion in every car then sure lets get green!
 
#85
#85
mrorange211 said:
Oh yeah, for sure. It worked out really well when the USA wasn't a part of the League of Nations too.
Click to expand...

It's a different world now and we don't need entangling alliances to defend ourselves. We live on the other side of the globe from any threats and we have the most badass military and defense technology the world has ever seen, by a long shot.

We're worse off with these kinds of international agreements. If things between Turkey and Russia escalate, we are obligated to take Turkey's side. This is lunacy.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 people
#86
#86
n_huffhines said:
It's a different world now and we don't need entangling alliances to defend ourselves. We live on the other side of the globe from any threats and we have the most badass military and defense technology the world has ever seen, by a long shot.

We're worse off with these kinds of international agreements. If things between Turkey and Russia escalate, we are obligated to take Turkey's side. This is lunacy.
Click to expand...

I don't disagree with your Turkey statement, but to believe that we should turn completely isolationist again is misguided and would ultimately lead to another world war, imo.
 
#87
#87
mrorange211 said:
I don't disagree with your Turkey statement, but to believe that we should turn completely isolationist again is misguided and would ultimately lead to another world war, imo.
Click to expand...

I don't think we should be isolationist. We should trade freely with everyone, for one thing. Don't need agreements for that. There is more than 1 alternative to refusing entangling alliances. There are infinite options for diplomatic relations that don't include these types of agreements.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 people
#88
#88
n_huffhines said:
I don't think we should be isolationist. We should trade freely with everyone, for one thing. Don't need agreements for that. There is more than 1 alternative to refusing entangling alliances. There are infinite options for diplomatic relations that don't include these types of agreements.
Click to expand...

*unrelated to OP*

Hey huff, did you happen to watch Obama's drug czar on 60 minutes last night?
 
#90
#90
n_huffhines said:
No, what was the gist of it?
Click to expand...

Addiction is a disease.
War on drugs is a failure.

Seems to be the most Libertarian (regarding drug policy) high-ranking official.

If you can watch it online, might give you some hope about where our country is headed.

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/60-minutes-top-drug-official-says-the-old-war-on-drugs-is-all-wrong/
 
Last edited:
#92
#92
McDad said:
Addiction is a disease.
War on drugs is a failure.

Seems to be the most Libertarian (regarding drug policy) high-ranking official.

If you can watch it online, might give you some hope about where our country is headed.
Click to expand...

Weed legalization and turning down the drug war have seemed like a foregone conclusion the last few years. Government pretends like they lead the way, but the people have been on this parade for years now and the Czar is jumping out in front of that parade 3/4 of the way through...

The point I am trying to make is this doesn't really give me hope for where the country is headed. This wasn't about libertarian idealism. It's a no-brainer. There is absolutely no convincing argument for sustaining or ramping up the WoD.

In some areas America is headed in a very good direction (lessening of WoD, gay rights, information, technology), and in some areas, I am very concerned for our future (hyper PC culture, government spending/debt, war on terror, burdensome climate agreements).
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#93
#93
n_huffhines said:
Weed legalization and turning down the drug war have seemed like a foregone conclusion the last few years. Government pretends like they lead the way, but the people have been on this parade for years now and the Czar is jumping out in front of that parade 3/4 of the way through...

The point I am trying to make is this doesn't really give me hope for where the country is headed. This wasn't about libertarian idealism. It's a no-brainer. There is absolutely no convincing argument for sustaining or ramping up the WoD.

In some areas America is headed in a very good direction (lessening of WoD, gay rights, information, technology), and in some areas, I am very concerned for our future (hyper PC culture, government spending/debt, war on terror, burdensome climate agreements).
Click to expand...

No need to gush, huff.


A simple, "thanks mcdad. Kind of you to think of me.", would have been sufficient.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#94
#94
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...

Is that a loan or no? It sounds like business as usual. Confessions of an Economic Hitman was written by a lunatic, but the government playbook he describes is not really in question. You obligate these poor countries to up their infrastructure, you give them a loan, then a big western contractor gets the work. The poor country typically has trouble repaying the loan, which gives western powers all sorts of leverage in the relationship.

$100B isn't that much to raise between the wealthy countries, honestly, so maybe it is just a gift, but it's probably not enough to cover it all (which is where loans would come in).
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#95
#95
KentheOrange said:
Give me a clue please. I can't find any president other than Obama with an EO stopped by a federal judge.
Click to expand...

All I can find overturned by the courts where EO's signed by Democratic Presidents.


In 1935, the Supreme Court overturned five of President Franklin Roosevelt's executive orders (6199, 6204, 6256, 6284, 6855).


President Truman's Executive Order 10340 in Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer, 343 US 579 (1952) placed all steel mills in the country under federal control. This was found invalid because it attempted to make law, rather than clarify or act to further a law put forth by the Congress or the Constitution.

Executive Order 12954, issued by President Clinton in 1995, attempted to prevent the federal government from contracting with organizations that had strike-breakers on the payroll; a federal appeals court subsequently ruled that the order conflicted with the National Labor Relations Act, and invalidated the order.

Clinton's Executive Order 13155 was also overturned. This order required federal benefits and services to be provided in foreign languages. This order was overturned by the Supreme Court, Alexander v. Sandoval (99-1908) 532 U.S. 275, on April 24, 2001
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#96
#96
Gramps said:
All I can find overturned by the courts where EO's signed by Democratic Presidents.


In 1935, the Supreme Court overturned five of President Franklin Roosevelt's executive orders (6199, 6204, 6256, 6284, 6855).


President Truman's Executive Order 10340 in Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer, 343 US 579 (1952) placed all steel mills in the country under federal control. This was found invalid because it attempted to make law, rather than clarify or act to further a law put forth by the Congress or the Constitution.

Executive Order 12954, issued by President Clinton in 1995, attempted to prevent the federal government from contracting with organizations that had strike-breakers on the payroll; a federal appeals court subsequently ruled that the order conflicted with the National Labor Relations Act, and invalidated the order.

Clinton's Executive Order 13155 was also overturned. This order required federal benefits and services to be provided in foreign languages. This order was overturned by the Supreme Court, Alexander v. Sandoval (99-1908) 532 U.S. 275, on April 24, 2001
Click to expand...

So Dem Presidents have a history of unconstitutional EOs?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#99
#99
37L1 said:
Really, "legally binding"? What parts would that be?

What happens "legally" if a country doesn't do what it agreed to do under this agreement?

Do the other countries call them names? Do they not let them play in their reindeer games?
Click to expand...
Ha, well, sort of. The NWO won’t invade nations for failing to comply, but that doesn’t mean there aren’t aspects of the deal that are technically legally binding. It is mandatory that countries are transparent about their climate plans and regularly report their progress. You’re right though; failure to do so probably won’t result in punitive measures beyond international shame and condemnation. Article 15 does establish “a mechanism to facilitate implementation of and promote compliance with the provisions of this agreement” but its details are yet to be worked out. I suspect that if a country seriously reneges on its agreement the worst that would happen is that that country loses the technology sharing benefits.

Like I said, this agreement uses the carrot instead of the stick. It’s a bottom-up approach that mostly relies on peer pressure. The other way around does not work. Frankly, as mrorange noted, it’s amazing that we got 195 countries to agree to anything. I do think international cooperation is necessary to some degree but the more important policy decisions are made at the national and local levels. And again, I don’t think the emissions targets themselves are as important as the message that was sent to the global marketplace. Domestic climate policies help get the ball rolling, but the real problem-solving will occur in the private sector.
 
#100
#100
hog88 said:
And there is the rub. Humans have had little impact on the climate, there is nothing we can do to prevent the earth from warming or cooling yet we want to spend billions in a futile attempt. Where the money should be spent is dealing with the effects of a warming planet to ensure survival.
Click to expand...
Obviously the scientific community disagrees with your premise, but I want to point out that we are spending plenty of money on adaptation. It is specifically discussed in the Paris Agreement, and a sizeable portion of the climate finance is already going towards adaptation.

We’re spending plenty on adaptation here at home, too. Miami Beach is spending $500 million (which it’s struggling to come up with) in order to keep the ocean at bay by installing pumps and raising roads and sea walls. And that’s just one example of the tip of the iceberg. It will cost billions and billions of dollars to adapt the world’s infrastructure and to move some communities (even whole nations) entirely.

Those efforts will be all for naught if we don't address the underlying problem, though. We don't have a choice between mitigation and adaptation; we must do both.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top