I don’t pretend to know the impetus for the collectively produced political philosophies which are derived from the retarded minds of communists and liberals. Or just, “communists” will suffice, so as to avoid needless repetition.
I don't follow your point. I am unaware of anyone making up the shortfall, or not. the money isn't really the issue. ironically, the shutdown itself cost 3 billion directly. are you under the impression that the world can avert these problems without the US? it cannot. just like with CFCs and the ozone layer, it only works if virtually everyone participates.
ah, you are hitting on my semantics portion. everything is communist and/or socialist that isn't agreeable to a conservative. they even label each other such sometimes. it waters down the word and opens the gates to the real thing. the left made the same mistake with "Nazi."
It was a mistake - either a misunderstanding that Keystone XL and Keystone are separate pipelines in the same system or a slip of tounge - however, ideally you wouldn’t make either mistake. Regardless, it isn’t significant to the point she was attempting to make and is a stupid way of trying to undermine her.
I’m at a conference this week - yesterday Rick Perry said that in the US we are making great strides at reducing the energy from our emissions. That makes no sense. Why do we care about energy from emissions. Doesn’t he know we don’t get energy from emissions and if we did why would we want to reduce it? I fully expect to see multiple articles today highlighting his misunderstanding of how this works.
I wholly understand your position, and don't necessarily disagree. However, the best leaders do so by example, not words.
Here is where you get squirrelly, intentional or not... 1. If the US’ pledged money - hundreds of millions of dollars - and the relief that it would bring to the issue was actually as critical as everyone alleged....doesn’t it make sense that the remaining member nations would have increased their pledged amounts to account for that shortfall, once rescinded? If they have not, then what does that then reasonably say, about the nature of the crisis, their sincere belief as to the necessity of these funds to combat it, or both? 2. Is it fair to say that their lack of making up for these lost funds only further and correctly fuel so much suspicion that liberals are attempting to cloak their desire for even more wealth redistribution throughout the world - and on the US’ dime - by leveraging the very real specter of climate change? 3. If the money isn’t the issue - then why was it requested, required or necessary? And if it’s unnecessary, then what was the harm in Trump’s refusing to pay it? 4. Does the US government have to fund the global initiative, in order to reduce its own carbon emissions? Didn’t many private companies, states and cities commit to meeting those standards, even despite Trump’s withdrawal from the Paris Agreement? I seem to recall seeing that the US has already far exceeded our pledged reduction in emissions as included in the Paris Agreement, but may not be correctly remembering that. Do you know? 5. But even if the US did nothing, are you arguing that some reduction by the rest of the member nations isn’t still better than none at all - particularly when considering that China and India are far and away the nations with the highest carbon emissions, but who still remain to be part of the Paris Agreement? Because if that’s the case...and limiting the emissions from the rest of the globe, including the worst offenders in China and India, isn’t worthwhile, then I’m struggling to see what we are even talking about or attempting to do here, tbh.
the money is a drop in the bucket, and largely symbolic to a level of commitment. the money alone wasn't the point. it is weird that it seems to be the sticking point, given that it represented a small percentage of the total funds being raised. that amount of money, even if nefariously being used simply for wealth distribution, would amount to 43 cents per person on earth, at the cost of 9 dollars and 38 cents per an American for a net cost of a little under in dollars. if this was a wealth redistribution scheme, it wasn't going to work. the money was made into the issue because many people wouldn't do the above math and would get upset at the large total sum. the real issue was emissions reductions domestically, which would have been a drag on profit margins for many traditional energy and industry sectors as they would need to invest in mitigation technologies. the harm is that it demonstrated a lack of commitment to reducing emissions globally. a third world country will follow the same development path and increase emissions without that money to invest and jump past that point. there are several reasons why industry would rather that not happen. all dependent on the costs of it being externalized to human health and natural resource degradation. the us not committing greatly retards the ability to reach the goals set and domestically incentivizes some places to undercut the cities and states making the effort, because the costs are externalized to human health and natural resource degradation. per capita, the us is the biggest emitter. all the China and India blaming is bullshit for the following reasons: only recently did they become bigger net emitters, combined they make up almost a third of the people on earth and more than 2% of all the humans who ever lived, the particulate matter and sulfur dioxide emissions that cause them so many air quality problems actually have a cooling effect that mitigates their contribution to warming experienced so far, and they are following the same industrialization path we did first. it is worthwhile, but it wasn't going to fix it all alone. now it is even of less worth, though still having a measurable, calculatable positive impact on future scenarios. bucket brigades are better than nothing with a house fire. we are sitting on our bucket.
Children, through the 2"x4" box of knowledge, that is in their faces 24 hours a day, think they know what they are talking about. Because a person that has a million followers must know what they're talking about.
yeah but if you do what see wants we will send the world into a depression and people likely starve. there is no easy answer either way.
people are starving right now, and will continue to. production capacity of food isn't the cause of starvation anymore. it wasn't in the potato famine either. it's market forces.
people are currently starving at the lowest rate in world history. do what AOC wants and it will be a LOT worse.
I love this show, 600 pound life, where with a straight face, a 600 pound person will say they are starving. I think in another thread, something about the sugar tax, the nation, as a whole, is overweight
she wants to eliminate large farming operations and eliminate greenhouse gases and pollution from farming.
