I’m not talking about their stake in the Paris agreement, I’m talking about their industries starting to making a shift by increasing investments in renewable resources. It’s just an example to show that people are making steps in the right direction.
But since when does the US need to wait for other countries to do things before we make the right decisions? Shouldn’t we be focusing on the problem regardless of what other nations do?
arent some of the US states already near energy sustainability anyways?
i read recently that one of the carolinas was nearly all solar already… cali is way progressive on the solar and wind farming tip.
just because 45 doesnt endorse it doesnt mean the US isnt among the more progressive countries. At a state by state level i think some parts of the US are way past some of the more progressive countries out there and with similar footprints (population and land area).
i also agree with the comment above about china / india not caring about climate change. There are places in China where you have to wear masks all day outside because its so heavily polluted.
symbolically though, i get what your’re saying. it just doesnt have the same resonance with me.
I understand not wanting to negatively impact our economy with burdensome regulations. ESPECIALLY when it’s unknown how impactful those regulations will actually be to reversing climate change.
That being said, it’s pretty damn hard to deny climate change. It’s happening.
The US is still the second largest contributor to CO2 emissions. Progress will be slowed or reversed with a gutted EPA and no financial incentive for corporations to push renewable resources.
We are going backwards and the rest of the world’s leading industries will push on without us. Why SHOULDN’T we do something to control our CO2 output? Forget about the other nations for a second and honestly ask yourself why this would benefit the USA.
I would like to see the expansion of solar (which is getting cheaper by the day) and nuclear power plants.
There is a lot of economic opportunity in “going green”, so I don’t think we should stifle those efforts in any way. At the same time, we shouldn’t regulate our way there either.
For example, one of the things that I am NOT in favor of is regulations on forcing auto manufacturers to meet MPG/emissions requirements on vehicles. That just makes cars more expensive and I fail to see any meaningful impact to climate change from that policy.
The free market will always be the driver of innovation. Tesla, and Elon Musk, is proving that day-by-day. Continue to provide tax incentives to subsidize those vehicles to consumers and you’ll see how they will become wildly popular.
EXACTLY. Hell, I’m putting solar on my house. Not because it’s some feel good helping the environment thing. I’m doing it because it makes sense economically. Every time I hear a politician talk about regulating our way out of climate change what I really see is a wolf licking his chops at a flock of sheep and all the new tax revenue he’s about to squeeze out of them.
The government pushed ethanol as a great way to “help the planet” and look at what a corrupt mess that’s become. We’re literally burning our major food crop in our cars so we can provide massive subsidies to corporate mega farms.
I can understand that point but when we’re dealing with a time sensitive matter, innovation can’t always keep up. Especially when the problem is unfortunately the cheapest way of doing things.
Don’t kid yourself, companies are going after their bottom line and fossil fuels help that the most. We can collectively control this or let them continue to line their own pockets at the cost of a negative impact on the planet. We’ve already caused a ton of irreversible impact. Why cause more?
I’ll start supporting accords like this when they start becoming about how we’re going to adapt to the changing climate instead of how we’re going to stop it because we’re never going to stop it. I have no interest or support at all for massively increasing taxes while we pay to rebuild coastal cities that shouldn’t have been built there.
When I say “we’re not going to stop it”, that’s backed by science too. It’s a little talked about inconvenient truth that the earth throughout the majority of it’s history has been ice free. All this talk about the retreat and expansion of the ice caps only happens because we’re STILL IN AN ICE AGE, the Pliocene-Quaternary glaciation to be specific, and it started 2.5 million years ago. It is only though the hubris of man that we can sit here and talk about how we’re going to slow this ice melt and save these unsustainable coastal megalopolises. The same hubris that made us think we were so in control of mother nature that we could build trillions of dollars worth of real estate on the coastal areas of the world in the first place.
Anything that you can do quickly, and actually make a large difference, will be too costly and will crush our economy.
So what exactly does “time sensitive” mean here? It’s always a relative term. We can probably make a noticeable impact in a 50 year timeline. We’re not going to be able to make a difference in the next 5 though. The scale of the problem and the scale of contributors to the problem are WAY too large.
Profitable companies also provide jobs and cost-effective goods and services to American people. If you take that away, you also take away the lifestyle that Americans are accustomed to.
Besides, the government doesn’t actually want to fix it quickly. If you do the new tax stream dries up. Ideally you implement punishing carbon tax policies that look good on paper and get the sheep to vote for them but don’t actually help the problem. Then you can continue those taxes indefinitely.
So I know this isn’t the meme thread, but can we talk about this?
I hadn’t seen anything about it in the MSM so when I saw the meme this morning I started reading.
So the FBI wasn’t allowed to look at the DNC servers, only the DNC hired private security company CrowdStrike was. We then used this 3rd party’s reports as the basis of the Russian hacking narrative, and now CrowdStrike is backing away from their claims and refusing to testify before Congress? How is this not news? (That last question is sarcasm, I know why it’s not.)
Let’s back up a second. So neither of you think that the effects of climate change deserve immediate attention? Or do you just think that the market should adjust to it on its own because you think it’s better for the economy that way?
I sense a fundamental misunderstanding about what climate change is and what the Paris Accord is actually trying to do…
Does climate change DESERVE immediate attention? Yes. I agree it needs ATTENTION. A plan SHOULD be formulated to figure out what would be best for our earth, while still supporting free markets, innovation and a continuation of the lifestyle to which we are all accustomed.
It depends on what that action is. I PREFER a market-driven solution, with some government assistance in the form of tax incentives. Again, there are many economic opportunities for green initiatives. It would be better for our country if we can profit off of innovating, rather than lose from regulating.
Do I think we should join the Paris Accord? Yes. But, from all that I have seen of the Paris Accord, it is very vague in the expectations of the agreed countries. If recent history is any indicator, the expectation will be that the US outspend all other countries by many multiples. I have a problem with that. We’re already spending trillions of dollars to fight other country’s wars and police the world. So now, we MAY (or may not) be expected to solve the climate change problem too?
Lastly, if you think that China and India are going to contribute their fair share of funds to this cause, then you are out of your mind.
The fact that each country got to set their own goals and there are no penalties for not meeting them tells you how much of a joke the accord is. China’s GOAL is to reach it’s PEAK emissions by 2030. AKA, they’re going to keep emitting more and more each year for the next 13 years and then hopefully they’ll level off.
All this accord provides is cover for politicians to raise taxes.
“We said we’d cut our emissions by 25%, so we’ve got to add a new .50/gal tax to gasoline”.
“Looks like we’re still not on track, time for an additional tax on electricity.”
“What do you know, we’re still not on track. Time for a national mileage tax.”
And the end result? The planet is still going to keep getting warmer, coastal areas are going to keep getting wrecked by hurricanes and we’ll just have less money in our pockets. Government will get bigger with more money to spend though, which is the true goal of corrupt governments like ours.
I have similar feelings about India and China but both are further ahead in their goals than expected. New coal plants are being cancelled, old coal plants are being shut down, and significant investments are being made in solar and wind energy. But that’s just a small part of this.
We will now be 1 of 3 countries that have not signed on to the Paris Accord, joining Syria and Nicaragua. Good company to have.
The Paris Accord doesn’t have any bite to it. I certainly understand that but you guys are making it seem like we’re fronting the bill while the other countries dine and dash. That’s simply not true. We are the biggest contributors to CO2 emissions so we need to put our equal share into the effort to mitigate the damage from it.
Whatever your feelings on the Paris Accord, India, China, or whatever, my point is this;
If we do something to stop climate change sooner rather than later;
If you noticed your pant leg was on fire would you wait until it reaches your shirt before you thought to put it out? I can’t wrap my head around why anyone could argue that making steps towards renewable resources isn’t a HUGE benefit across the globe. Solar electricity employs 4 times as many people as coal powered electricity, has more advanced positions to be filled that prep the working class for other markets, and is better for us and more sustainable.
The idea that the planet will continue to change in this fashion is complete bullshit. When people think this it tells me that they do not understand what is really causing these changes.
I love how the environmental debate is going on between a guy with a bicycle in his sig vs the SUV towing a boat.
Then why do 4th gear pulls on Zee highway in a non hybrid, non electric car? Seems like you could reduce CO2 output right there:
http://www.nyspeed.com/showthread.php?232001-335i-vs-B6-S4
But seriously, let’s forget about the Paris Accord and talk about the Honda Accord:
Hydrogen fuel cell $60k for 0-60 in 8.2s and 16.4s 1/4 mile:
http://www.caranddriver.com/comparisons/honda-clarity-and-toyota-mirai-hydrogen-fuel-cell-cars-compared-comparison-test-first-place-honda-clarity-page-3
-or-
V6 $30k for 0-60 in 5.8s and 14.4s 1/4 mile:
http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/2016-honda-accord-v-6-sedan-test-review
Does it make it better or worse that my solar system that will cover more than 100% of my electric usage is being installed July 11th? 
Paulo, you do know WHY Nicaragua didn’t sign it right?
Nica is a fantastic country just north of Costa Rica. Much of their country is already practicing sustainability and they are basically a poster child for “going green”. They pulled out of the Paris Accord because it doesn’t go far enough.
So if you were pro-“climate change action”, then they would be fantastic company to be with.
Only better if you run the A/C and an electric space heater at the same time.
:lol: I used to own a diesel too.
Yes I do. The comment was pointed more towards Syria since they were basically unable to even be involved. I don’t agree with Nicaragua’s reasoning behind it, but I certainly understand it. They will hopefully make their own steps.
So again, is there a misunderstanding about climate change in this thread? What do you guys think SHOULD happen, if anything?