The Environment

default_sad.png
 
The sad thing is Pence would probably do the same thing. He uses that same muddy the waters, fuzzy science logic to be skeptical of climate change that Trump apparently buys into.

We can correct this. 2020 is better than 2024. But the Democrats need to offer a solid alternative and people need to wake up and be honest about the two paths we could then chart.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
This was one of my top issues for the 2016 election. It hardly gets more basic and fundamental than acknowledging or denying science at a time when global cooperation is already tardy and urgently needed.

That election wasn't a damn joke, guys. It's sad that only one of the two candidates' parties supported it and sadder still that this was easily ignored. We often wonder why we get bad results in politics. We, the electorate, should start by looking in the mirror.

Paul Krugman's Monday column: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/29/opinion/trump-g-7-summit-energy.html

Now, maybe Trump won’t really pull the plug on Paris; or maybe he’ll be gone from the scene before the damage is irreversible. But there’s a real possibility that last week was a pivotal moment in human history, the moment when an irresponsible leader sent the whole world careening off to hell in a golf cart.
Click to expand...
Now sans the "maybe".

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Any country can pull out of any international agreement at any time. There will be consequences, but "the law is the law and it must be obeyed" is patently false.

 
Is it false? I think he (president of the EU commission) is saying that this would either take three to four years, or violate laws, or both. It's probably possible to tear up laws and agreements, to be sure, but not without serious repercussions.

From Scientific American in Nov 2016 (emphasis mine): https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/could-trump-simply-withdraw-u-s-from-paris-climate-agreement/

Michael Wara, an environmental law professor at the Stanford Law School, said Trump could use his office to issue an executive communication removing the United States from Paris, but even if he did that, the United States would still be a party for four years and could be subject to its legally binding procedural commitments.

If the United States failed to meet its obligations, which are being negotiated starting now at the U.N. climate conference underway in Marrakech, Morocco, it would be breaking international law.

The United States could take a shortcut and exit the UNFCCC, a move that could be likely, given Trump’s criticisms of the U.N. body. That could be done in one year rather than four, and would result in leaving Paris, as well. Or Trump’s administration could send observers to monitor negotiations but not participate in them and refuse to carry through on Obama’s nationally determined contribution pledge to cut carbon dioxide emissions 26 to 28 percent compared with 2005 levels by 2025.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Last edited by a moderator:
http://thehill.com/homenews/house/335886-gop-rep-on-climate-change-god-will-take-care-of-it

Rep. Tim Walberg (R-Mich.) told constituents last week that he believes if climate change is a real problem, God can fix it.

“I believe there’s climate change,” Walberg said at a town hall last Friday in Coldwater, Mich., according to the Huffington Post, which obtained video of the exchange.

“I believe there’s been climate change since the beginning of time. I think there are cycles. Do I think that man has some impact? Yeah, of course. Can man change the entire universe? No.”

“Why do I believe that? Well, as a Christian, I believe that there is a creator in God who is much bigger than us. And I’m confident that, if there’s a real problem, he can take care of it.”
Click to expand...
xkcd comes to mind:

beliefs.jpg


 
Last edited by a moderator:
Back
Top