US Pulls out of Paris Climate Accords

[The Oblivion]

Because I don't feel like sifting through 96 pages of bullshit? Once again, if you can't have a conversation like an adult, fuck off.

yes, such intelligence in your recent posts. LOL you really have no points at all for the accord do you? none based in reality atleast lol

- - - Updated - - -

The US is not an Island - we can't just "Focus on ourselves". Being part of the international community benefits all Americans, especially on topics like Climate Change, which is a global problem, not just an American problem.

Also, the debt is not really an issue.

Yes, yes we can, and SHOULD. The US is already doing its part in reducing its own emissions. others should follow suit and do the same without expecting us to do it for them at our cost.

[Rudol Von Stroheim]

A countries debt doesn't work like personal debt or a business debt. The majority holder of our debt is our own citizens. We don't pay minimums in the same sense as regular debt to those holders. They have bonds they can cash out at later dates.

So, you're back to the false dichotomy. We're not helping these other countries just for the sake of it. We're investing in them to help save our planet. We can do that while also working on our own needs without any problems. We won't "bleeding money, resources or time" or "stretching ourselves thin". We're more capable than you give us credit for.

There is still debt owed to given parties that if we do not meet their minimums, could become very upset so yes... I'll grant you there is some differences, the overall scheme of it is still ultimately the same. Not to mention there is still the risk of a massive bond return and nothing to cash out. You're still, regardless of how much you'd like to believe otherwise, are limited in what you can do or you're arguably stepping into a criminally twisted realm of burrowing.

I, personally, would like to keep our debt to where we know, even if there was a catastrophe, we'd likely still be in the green and millions of hands didn't come outreaching at once for money we don't even have in the first place.

Besides that, there are other concerns too as I brought up; again, back to splitting up your focus and resources. If you're never focused on your home, it goes to waste while everyone else reaps the benefits of your work and earnings. Why do that? It's not a false dichotomy. You keep saying that yet fail to acknowledge it is a PERSONAL POSITION that I have and not something that I mandate everyone else have as if it is the literal and only opinion to have. It is one I have garnered through life experiences and one that I find helps significantly improve one's life and by extension, actually makes you better positioned to help others later.

So naturally I bring this philosophy with me when it comes to debate of governance. Why can't you just accept the fact that I don't agree with you? It's almost like you're insulted that I'm not a carbon-copy of opinions and don't readily fall in line because you tell me I should. Which ironically is what you're accusing me of. Leaving no option for dissenting opinion.

[infinitemeridian]

yes, such intelligence in your recent posts. LOL you really have no points at all for the accord do you? none based in reality atleast lol

- - - Updated - - -


Yes, yes we can, and SHOULD. The US is already doing its part in reducing its own emissions. others should follow suit and do the same without expecting us to do it for them at our cost.

Ok, so we're doing our part (supposedly). Then, what's the problem with being part of the Accords? If we had nothing to gain, we only had something to lose by giving up our (or what could have been) our leadership role in this process on the global stage. Now China will step in and take our spot.

Also, if we're doing our part, why do we keep electing public officials into office who deny basic science and facts?

[Rudol Von Stroheim]

The US is not an Island - we can't just "Focus on ourselves". Being part of the international community benefits all Americans, especially on topics like Climate Change, which is a global problem, not just an American problem.

Also, the debt is not really an issue.

It doesn't when we continue to disregard our home front.

I don't believe in being an "island" but I also don't believe in constantly keeping your gaze elsewhere.

[infinitemeridian]

It doesn't when we continue to disregard our home front.

I don't believe in being an "island" but I also don't believe in constantly keeping your gaze elsewhere.

How is being part of the accords "constantly keeping your gaze elsewhere"? Are we suddenly dropping all our talks of revamping our bloated and expensive health care system? Are we now perfectly fine with our overall terrible education system?

[The Oblivion]

Ok, so we're doing our part (supposedly). Then, what's the problem with being part of the Accords? If we had nothing to gain, we only had something to lose by giving up our (or what could have been) our leadership role in this process on the global stage. Now China will step in and take our spot.

Also, if we're doing our part, why do we keep electing public officials into office who deny basic science and facts?

we would be expected to give funds to others, no point in setting that expectation. instead, we chose the HONEST route.

it does not matter what your opinion on officials are, the fact is year over year the US has reduced its emissions and is leading the green tech industry. We dont need to send money to other countries to keep doing this or sign the accords on a false promise.

China loves the accords, they would limit US production and available energy, force funds from the US to others, while imposing nearly NO limits on china and allowing their emissions to continue to RISE as they have year over year. Same for india and many others.

[Rudol Von Stroheim]

How is being part of the accords "constantly keeping your gaze elsewhere"? Are we suddenly dropping all our talks of revamping our bloated and expensive health care system? Are we now perfectly fine with our overall terrible education system?

It isn't by itself. It's the notion that the collective of our efforts tends to bleed us out while providing little in return. We need to be a little more shrewd, in my opinion, and start doing some work here as well through Federal backing.

[infinitemeridian]

we would be expected to give funds to others, no point in setting that expectation. instead, we chose the HONEST route.

it does not matter what your opinion on officials are, the fact is year over year the US has reduced its emissions and is leading the green tech industry. We dont need to send money to other countries to keep doing this or sign the accords on a false promise.

China loves the accords, they would limit US production and available energy, force funds from the US to others, while imposing nearly NO limits on china and allowing their emissions to continue to RISE as they have year over year. Same for india and many others.

The accords were non-binding. If there was something that we didn't want to do, we didn't have to do it. This has been repeated over and over in this thread, and yet you ignore it because "feels > reals" according to you.

Same goes for our competition with China. If the accords actually did what you say they did, which you haven't a shred of evidence that they did, then we don't need to maintain that.

[The Oblivion]

Based on an opinion that it MIGHT hurt our GDP in the SHORT TERM. It's not even based on facts. It's the same propaganda bullshit always put forth. That we must accept a lower standard of living for this change and that's outright bullshit.

- - - Updated - - -


It helps combat climate change. That is the entire point. Holy fuck you're being ridiculous. What are the negatives you're claiming? Name a single. fucking. one.

there is only opinions on what being part of or not part of it may due. the FACTS are it would limit US production of energies, force money away from the US, and allow china to continue nearly business as usual.

If your only opinion is that it is not mandatory, that supports the conclusion that we should not join, as we would either be lying, or losing money. Its a no win for the US.

Thank goodness our leadership was able to see this for what it is, redistribution of money to other countries while limiting ourselves for no reason.

[Glorious Leader]

There is still debt owed to given parties that if we do not meet their minimums, could become very upset so yes... I'll grant you there is some differences, the overall scheme of it is still ultimately the same. Not to mention there is still the risk of a massive bond return and nothing to cash out. You're still, regardless of how much you'd like to believe otherwise, are limited in what you can do or you're arguably stepping into a criminally twisted realm of burrowing.

I, personally, would like to keep our debt to where we know, even if there was a catastrophe, we'd likely still be in the green and millions of hands didn't come outreaching at once for money we don't even have in the first place.

Besides that, there are other concerns too as I brought up; again, back to splitting up your focus and resources. If you're never focused on your home, it goes to waste while everyone else reaps the benefits of your work and earnings. Why do that? It's not a false dichotomy. You keep saying that yet fail to acknowledge it is a PERSONAL POSITION that I have and not something that I mandate everyone else have as if it is the literal and only opinion to have. It is one I have garnered through life experiences and one that I find helps significantly improve one's life and by extension, actually makes you better positioned to help others later.

So naturally I bring this philosophy with me when it comes to debate of governance. Why can't you just accept the fact that I don't agree with you? It's almost like you're insulted that I'm not a carbon-copy of opinions and don't readily fall in line because you tell me I should. Which ironically is what you're accusing me of. Leaving no option for dissenting opinion.

This is economically ignorant. Ask yourself one very simple question what currency is US debt measured in? After that it should become fairly obvious why "meeting our minimums" is fucking stupid when you apply it to a currency sovereign.

[The Oblivion]

The accords were non-binding. If there was something that we didn't want to do, we didn't have to do it. This has been repeated over and over in this thread, and yet you ignore it because "feels > reals" according to you.

Same goes for our competition with China. If the accords actually did what you say they did, which you haven't a shred of evidence that they did, then we don't need to maintain that.

it has not been ignored once, in fact, that is one of the reasons to get out of the agreement, not binding means we either join will full intent to not do what we said we will, or we join and throw US funds down the drain.

If it was binding, those funds could be regulated with how they are used and controlled, how it stands, we would have no say.

So either we join and dont do anything in the accords and are called out for being liars and not holding out end up, we throw away money that cannot be controlled, or we stay honest, dont join, and continue improving ourselves.

[The Oblivion]

The amount of money "forced" away is negligible. The Federal government spent that much money during the span of this conversation. It's a moot point.

1 dollar is not worth giving to other countries under this accord. We should focus on ourselves, if they want to reduce their emission, they will just like the US has been.

[Sargerasraider]

Based on an opinion that it MIGHT hurt our GDP in the SHORT TERM. It's not even based on facts. It's the same propaganda bullshit always put forth. That we must accept a lower standard of living for this change and that's outright bullshit.

I don't think a whole lot of people are arguing that it won't hurt GDP growth. The question is how much and when (https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/...ent/102399674/).

The main argument against this is that there will be a GDP hit for a trivial change in projected climate outcome. Meanwhile, major economic competitors will laugh their way to the bank. (If I'm China, I sure as heck keep my pledge to maybe peak emissions in 2030, as long as my competitors have to decrease substantially from previous levels now).

[The Oblivion]

Or we can pull out at a later date if the money isn't being used as expected. That was his point. We go in honestly and expect others to be honest. If they aren't, we bail.

Or we dont risk wasting on money on others and focus on ourselves and continuing to reduce our emissions. Money is better with us, then with them.

- - - Updated - - -

I don't think a whole lot of people are arguing that it won't hurt GDP growth. The question is how much and when (https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/...ent/102399674/).

The main argument against this is that there will be a GDP hit for a trivial change in projected climate outcome. Meanwhile, major economic competitors will laugh their way to the bank. (If I'm China, I sure as heck keep my pledge to maybe peak emissions in 2030, as long as my competitors have to decrease substantially from previous levels now).

It is an AMAZING deal for China and a few other countries.

If we were china, there is no downside to this deal. Hamstring our economic rivals, continue to increase our own emissions while expecting others to cut theirs, cash in on some free monies.

[Rudol Von Stroheim]

This is economically ignorant. Ask yourself one very simple question what currency is US debt measured in? After that it should become fairly obvious why "meeting our minimums" is fucking stupid when you apply it to a currency sovereign.

Debt is debt. Period. I will repeat this line until I vomit but it doesn't change what it is. Like I said before, the way we might operate due to the status of our currency and our influence is unique unto us... it still has limitations. We're still expected to pay. There is always, however small of a chance, potentially losing the status to begin with that largely inflates our worth and ability burrow as we do. I personally do not feel comfortable playing a bizarre form of economic "chicken" that completely disregards future happenings.

[Orlong]

Are you for real? I get the impression from you that you think the Donald is King of the world and the world should kiss his ass. Wrong so very very wrong. He and he alone pulled the US from the agreement

And Obama and Obama alone committed us to the agreement. He circumvented congress and signed us up. He didnt have the authority to do so as treaties need to be ratified by congress

[Rudol Von Stroheim]

Like what? And if we don't meet our "minimum" that you say exist, then what? What are they going to do? Cancel our credit card? You weren't even aware of who owns our debt. Why should I give your views on the issue any merit whatsoever? You believed in propaganda bullshit. And no, there is no chance of massive bond return. That's not how bonds work. They're useless until a certain date. Another misconception on your part.

The debit is irrelevant as fuck anyway. The federal government has spent ~24 billion dollars today alone. 3 billion is nothing to the US government for something like this.

What don't you understand about a false dichotomy? It doesn't matter if it's a personal position. You think we'll somehow regress as a country by helping other countries and that's complete and utter bullshit. It doesn't matter if we're in a better position to help others later if they're already fucked or if the entire world is fucked because of climate change.

Logic isn't subjective. Your personal views are illogical. I can accept you disagree with me but you should accept that you're being illogical.

...Er, in terms of a singular body owning the most debt that'd still be China. I wasn't wrong. I don't qualify "individual citizens" as an entity unto itself hence why I didn't provide that as the answer. Jesus you're being incredibly obtuse and all for the sake of attacking me because I don't agree with you on one matter. Get the fuck over it.

Also, at minimum, a default of debt would spell a heavy sense of uncertainty or distrust with the U.S. government which in turn limits burrowing, partnership, and investments. It's not something you want to have occur especially if we lost our status at some point(which that could push it towards such) as the standard currency.

[DarkTZeratul]

Debt is debt. Period.

No, it's not. National debt is NOT the same thing as personal debt, and you are dramatically misunderstanding how it works by assuming that it is.

[Glorious Leader]

Depends on which country we owe the debt to. In the US we use $ to describe it because most Americans have issues with conversion rates. They get so confused.

It's typically measured in USD because they saudis only take oil for USD. USD the worlds reserve currency. For the purposes of that dudes argument it's USD.

[Rudol Von Stroheim]

No, it's not. National debt is NOT the same thing as personal debt, and you are dramatically misunderstanding how it works by assuming that it is.

And you're dramatically over-inflating it to the point of being unicorn blood.